"... "Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said. "Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue." ..."
Sen. John McCain admitted Wednesday that he gave the FBI a dossier detailing claims of a Russian blackmail plot against President-elect
Donald Trump.
The Arizona lawmaker, a longtime Trump critic, made the public statement as questions piled up about his alleged role in spreading
an unverified and error-riddled document that Trump has denounced as "a complete and total fabrication."
"Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said.
"Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director
of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies
if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel
debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate
those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely
clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.
Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most
articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy
theory, and has published in The Nation some of the
clearest
arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian
where he has been
writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of
New
York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald
Trump Win.
In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of
this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy
Scahill accurately described as "brutal".
The term Gish gallop
, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a
fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in
rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the
opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the
Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a
deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by
Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.
In this part here , for
example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the
back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's
happening here:
Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or
the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most
recently when President Macron was elected ? -
Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ?
-
Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed
didn't happen?
Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?
Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just
claimed actually is not true?
Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive,
but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European
states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.
Maté: Where else?
Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was
crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and
former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the
time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing
thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does
the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was
different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public
space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a
matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.
Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently
presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world
prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot
of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's
plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no
Russian hack in Germany.
In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually
admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more
flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a
completely
false example .
That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the
fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that
Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté
just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite
obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.
The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim,
Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom
things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact
that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that
Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding
has.
jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to
defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' -
YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148
The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of
the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive
government it is, after which the following exchange took place:
Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the
topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort
of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing
would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.
At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up
the show and promote Harding's book on his own.
You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy
it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a
cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate
conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of
trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.
The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many
suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for
there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their
conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as
Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain
zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the
appearance of a legitimate argument.
Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History4
days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right
nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard
Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is
to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western
intelligence agencies.
That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority -
Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read
my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin
is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long
history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around
of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when
it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know
about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be
involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not
explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he
death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian
were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
"... "Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said. "Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue." ..."
Sen. John McCain admitted Wednesday that he gave the FBI a dossier detailing claims of a Russian blackmail plot against President-elect
Donald Trump.
The Arizona lawmaker, a longtime Trump critic, made the public statement as questions piled up about his alleged role in spreading
an unverified and error-riddled document that Trump has denounced as "a complete and total fabrication."
"Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said.
"Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director
of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
Finally an opportunity comes to offer B and MoA commenters a nice little Christmas present,
courtesy of ZeroHedge who have in the past reposted some of B's articles on their site.
True, ZH reposted this priceless gift from Caitlin Johnstone's own site but she seems to
have given her permission for the reposting.
Why priceless? - well who doesn't want to see the ever smug Luke Harding and his idiotic
and baseless arguments about Russian intrigue and inteference in US and European politics
taken down in a well-deserved thrashing by Aaron Mate?
Priceless to read the transcript and priceless to watch.
Luke Harding gets exposed for the fraud he really is and in such a way then!
If b has time I think he should make a post just about that interview/harding because he
seems to fool alot of people with these claims he is making.
I did watch the Luke Harding interview, largely as a result of Caitlin Johnstone, who I
have enormous respect for. However, I do not do Twitter. Incidentally, Julian Assange of all
people, brilliantly exposed Luke Harding (and the Guardian) in 2015. You can smell the sense
of betrayal.
The man who says he acted as a "go-between" last year to inform Sen. John McCain about the
controversial "dossier" containing salacious allegations about then-candidate Donald Trump is
speaking out, revealing how the ex-British spy who researched the document helped coordinate
its release to the FBI, the media and Capitol Hill.
"My mission was essentially to be a go-between and a messenger, to tell the senator and
assistants that such a dossier existed," Sir Andrew Wood told Fox News in an exclusive
interview with senior executive producer Pamela K. Browne.
Fox News spoke to Wood at the 2017 Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia,
Canada. As Britain's ambassador to Moscow from 1995-2000, Wood witnessed the end of Russian
President Boris Yeltsin and the rise of Vladimir Putin.
Just after the U.S. presidential election in November 2016, Arizona GOP Sen. McCain spoke
at the same security conference. Wood says he was instructed -- by former British spy
Christopher Steele -- to reach out to the senior Republican, whom Wood called "a good man,"
about the unverified document.
Wood insists that he's never read the dossier that his good friend and longtime colleague
prepared. It was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and funded by the
Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
In August 2016, "[Steele] came to me to tell me what was in it, and why it was important,"
Wood said. "He made it very clear yes, it was raw intelligence, but it needed putting into
proper context before you could judge it fully."
August 2016 is a critical period, just after the FBI opened the Russia meddling probe, and
after then-director James Comey recommended against prosecution for Clinton's mishandling of
classified information.
Wood said Steele had "already been in contact with the FBI" at the time.
"He said there was corroborating evidence in the United States, from which I assumed he
was working with an American company," Wood said.
British court records reviewed by Fox News as well as U.S. congressional testimony
revealed that Steele was directed and paid at least $168,000 by Fusion GPS founder Glenn
Simpson to push the research that fall to five American media outlets. According to British
court documents, Steele met with The New York Times (twice), The Washington Post (twice),
CNN, The New Yorker and Yahoo News (twice).
"Each of these interviews was conducted in person and with a member of Fusion also
present," according to the records associated with separate civil litigation against Steele
and Fusion GPS.
Wood said he'd heard of Fusion GPS, as the group Steele was working with, but had "never
heard of Mr. Simpson."
Three weeks after Trump won the presidential election, at the Canadian security
conference, the details were finalized for the dossier hand-off to McCain.
Along with the senator, Wood and McCain Institute for International Leadership staffer
David J. Kramer attended the Canadian conference.
British court records state McCain ordered Kramer to get a personal briefing from Steele
in Surrey, just outside of London, and then return to Washington, D.C., where Fusion GPS
would provide McCain with hard copies.
In January, McCain officially gave the dossier to the FBI, which already had its own copy
from Steele.
Of note, listed in the official program for the 2016 November Canadian conference as a
participant was Rinat Akhmetshin -- the same Russian lobbyist who was at Trump Tower five
months earlier in June for a highly scrutinized meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and others.
The senator's office noted to Fox News that McCain said in January 2017 he had no contact
with Akhmetshin. "Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made
public. Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy,
I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my
contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
It is not known whether Akhmetshin had any contact with Kramer. Fusion GPS and Kramer did
not respond to requests for comment from Fox News.
Doesn't this make McCain guilty of offenses under the Logan act; the very offense that was
commonly levelled against Trump and called "collusion" in the press.
This confirms that Congressional Senators and Congressmen should operate under time limits
as well as be harshly punished for treasonous activity, meaning they are policed.
Exactly, as this will go on forever just to escape any scandal and other involvements of a
dubious nature. The US "justice" system is obviously primitive enough to allow this kind of
nonsense to continue.
"According to British court documents, Steele met with The New York Times (twice), The
Washington Post (twice), CNN, The New Yorker and Yahoo News (twice)."
Right there are your "fake news" propaganda sources. What do you want to bet they are all
Jewish owned...yet Trump kisses judea'sass?
Well, at the least it makes John McCain a total stooge who let his bias against Trump
override his ability to use good judgement, which by the way is already lacking.
"... Comey FBI also used the largely debunked Trump dossier, which alleged Russian ties to the President's campaign associates, to convince a judge to grant them a FISA warrant, allowing them to secretly monitor Trump campaign official Carter Page. ..."
"... Remember..."It is honourable to deceive the 'infidel'." This is just an 'inkling' of how far our mainstream media and 'establishment politicians' have waded into this 'cesspool'.... ..."
Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson spoke with US House investigators in a closed-door
meeting Tuesday, and confirmed what many in the non-establishment media already knew that
Fusion GPS never verified the Dossier claims before passing on the ridiculous document to the
corrupt establishment press.
According to
The Gateway Pundit , Herridge also said that her source told her that Glenn Simpson was
"upset" when Comey re-opened Hillary's email investigation at the end of October and wanted to
push back.
And he did
On October 31st, 2016 with just days to go until election day, David Corn of Mother Jones broke the story of a 'veteran spy' who gave the FBI information on
Trump's alleged connections to Russia. Christopher Steele, British spy and author of the
garbage dossier was not named in this Mother Jones report. Only hints of the dossier were
published; the salacious claims were omitted.
Hillary Clinton was disappointed the entire dossier hadn't been published in full prior to
the election. After all, she paid millions of dollars for the smear document.
The author of the dossier, Christopher Steele was also desperate to get the salacious
document out to the public. He told David Corn of
Mother Jones, "The story has to come out."
A week later, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were in utter shock when Trump won the
presidential election. Desperate to delegitimatize him,
BuzzFeed published the entire dossier on January 10th, right before the inauguration.
According to the Washington Post , the FBI agreed to pay the British Spy who
compiled the garbage dossier after the election to continue to dig up dirt on Trump and
Russia.
The FBI pulled out of this arrangement once the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele
was publicly identified in media reports.
Comey FBI also used the largely debunked Trump dossier, which alleged Russian ties to the
President's campaign associates, to
convince a judge to grant them a FISA warrant, allowing them to secretly monitor Trump
campaign official Carter Page.
Totally BUSTED ! Scam artists that they are. So how much money is the wild goose chase
going to cost American taxpayers. When are they going to start indicting some of these
scumbags, this is getting old already.
Remember..."It is honourable to deceive the 'infidel'." This is just an 'inkling' of how
far our mainstream media and 'establishment politicians' have waded into this
'cesspool'....
So nations participates in the witch hunt, because they do not like Trump. Nice... The level of degradation of the
remnants of US left is simply incredible.
And they cite "intelligence community conclusion" (a group of hacks personally selected by Brennan for hactchet job which, as
we now know, included Peter Strzok)
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win ..."
"... Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far from a partisan "witch hunt." ..."
"... I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton. The stakes are much larger. ..."
Luke Harding's new book, Collusion:
Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win , doesn't claim
to have definitive proof that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to win the election.
Still, Harding, who served as The Guardian 's Moscow bureau chief for four years
before being thrown out of the country for his critical reporting on Vladimir Putin's
government, presents a powerful case for Russian interference, and Trump campaign collusion, by
collecting years of reporting on Trump's connections to Russia and putting it all together in a
coherent narrative.
It's the sheer breadth of connections, many of them dating back 20 years or
more, between Trump and his associates and Russians with close ties to the Kremlin that put the
lie to Trump's repeated claims that he has no ties to Russia.
If all of these dealings were on
the up-and-up, Trump and his crew wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to obscure them. Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures
campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently
staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far
from a partisan "witch hunt."
In an interview with The Nation , Harding was quick to acknowledge that there's a
lot that we don't know. "I think when it comes to following the money, we only have maybe 10 or
15 percent of the story," he said. "I think 85 percent of that story is still submerged."
Nonetheless, he says that what we do know so far is significant.
I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's
bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another
set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically
contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton.
The stakes are much larger.
I think [Vladimir] Putin has kind of done this quite cleverly. He's not some kind of evil
villain in a cave flipping red switches. He's essentially an opportunist who has very
adroitly taken advantage of problems in the West, and divisions in American society --
whether they're cultural or racial or political -- and he's sought to exploit and
instrumentalize them for his own purposes.
There are also really interesting questions about how far back Russia's relationship with
Donald Trump goes. One thing my book makes clear, or seeks to make clear, is that the
Russians play a very long game. They've been interested in Donald Trump for a very long
time.
"... Well, they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't. ..."
"... He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. ..."
"... Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser ..."
"... Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news. Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA stooge. ..."
"... Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding? ..."
"... Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA? ..."
"... In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read. When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part. ..."
"... Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border crossing with a Russian aid convoy ..."
"... Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a Russian tank. ..."
Luke Daniel Harding
(born 1968) studied English at University College, Oxford. While there he edited the student
newspaper Cherwell . He worked for The Sunday Correspondent , the Evening
Argus in Brighton and then the Daily Mail before joining The Guardian in
1996. He was the Guardian's Russia correspondent from 2007-11.
Aside from his more publicly known achievements, it's worth noting Harding was accused of plagiarism by Mark Ames and Yasha
Levine of the eXile for publishing an
article under his own name that lifted large passages almost verbatim from their work. The
Guardian allegedly redacted portions of Harding's article in response to these accusations.
According to his own testimony , Luke
Harding is the guy who realised he was in the siloviki cross hairs one day when, during his
stay in Moscow as the Guardian's bureau chief, he came home and found one of his bedroom
windows open.
A less situationally-aware person would have made the fatal mistake of thinking one of his
kids or his wife had done it, or he'd done it himself and just forgotten, or that his landlord
had popped in to air the rooms (a bit of a tendency in
Russia apparently). But Luke was sure none of his family had opened the window. So it
had to have been the FSB.
You see, Luke isn't confined as we are by the constraints of petty mundanity. That was why
it had been so clear to him, even
without any evidence , that the FSB had murdered Litvinenko. And that was why Luke took one
look at that open window and realised the entire Russian intelligence machine was out to get
him .
The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts.
And that was only the start of the vicious campaign that was to follow. Tapes were left in
his cassette deck, when he knew he hadn't put them there. An alarm clock went off when he knew
he hadn't set it. Luke was filled with " a feeling of horror, alarm, incredulity, bafflement
and a kind of cold rational rage."
Things developed rapidly. Luke went to visit a woman called Olga who warned him to take
care, because he was "an enemy of Putin." He was sure someone had hacked his email account.
Whenever he said the name "Berezovsky" his phone line would go dead, so he started using the
word "banana" instead. A person from the Russian president's office called and asked for his
mobile number. Unable to imagine a single good reason why a Russian government official would
need a cell phone number for the Guardian's Russia bureau chief, he refused.
That wily Putin wasn't going to catch him that easily. The game of cat and mouse had
begun.
A middle-aged woman with a bad haircut knocked at his door at 7am, and walked away when he
opened it. Had she just gone to the wrong door? Of course not, it was the FSB taunting him. At
the airport on his way back to London a man with a Russian accent (in Moscow!) tapped him on
the back and told him there was something wrong with his jacket. Noticing the man was wearing a
leather coat, which meant he must be from the KGB, Luke immediately rushed to the gents and
took off all his clothes to find the "bugging device" the man had planted on him. He didn't
find one, but that didn't mean it wasn't there.
When the Russian government launched its prosecution of Berezovsky for fraud, someone from
the FSB phoned Luke and asked him to come in and make a statement about the interview he'd
conducted with the man a short time before. They also advised him to bring a lawyer, which
seemed sinister to Luke. A man called Kuzmin interviewed him for 55 minutes. Luke got quite
thirsty, but wouldn't drink the fizzy water he was offered, because he was pretty sure it had
been tampered with. Surprisingly Kuzmin didn't interrogate him as expected, but Luke decided
this was because the FSB were trying to intimidate him. They probably didn't need to do an
interrogation, thought Luke, since they'd been breaking in to his flat almost every day for
like – ever , switching on his alarm clock and probably also bugging his
phone.
After the western-backed Georgian invasion of South Ossetia Luke was amazed to note there
was widespread antagonism toward western journalists in Moscow. And the FSB just would not
leave him alone. Worried by this "campaign of brutishness" he decided to keep a log of the
dreadful things they were doing. Reading this we find not only did they continue to regularly
open his windows, they once turned off his central heating, made phantom ringing sounds happen
in the middle of the night (Luke couldn't find where they were coming from), deleted a screen
saver from his computer and left a book by his bed about getting better orgasms.
All this would have broken a lesser man. But Luke didn't break. Maybe that's why in the end,
they knew they'd have to expel him like in the old Soviet days. Which is what they did. Well,
they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he
didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his
kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because
Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't.
He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke
was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at
him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible
experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. But just when he thought all his espionage
problems were over, they started
up again when he began his book about Edward Snowden.
This time it was the NSA, GCHQ and a host of other western agencies stalking him. The PTB
obviously realised that Luke's book would be much much more of a threat to national
security than even Snowden himself, and did everything they could to try to stop him writing
it. They followed him around (he knew they were agents because they had iPhones) and even used
spy technology to remote-delete sentences from his computer – while he was typing
them. Especially when he was writing mean things about the NSA. But after he typed "I don't
mind you reading my manuscript but I'd be grateful if you don't delete it", they realised
they'd met their match and stopped.
He wasn't sure if the culprits were NSA, GCHQ or a Russian hacker, but one thing it
definitely wasn't was a glitchy keyboard.
I mean that would just be stupid.
NOTE: In case any of our readers are (understandably) inclined to think we must be
making this up or exaggerating, we encourage them to read about it here and here
in Luke's own words. You'll find we have merely summarised them.
Yes, he really does believe everything attributed to him in this article. He really does
think the FSB were opening his windows. And he really did run to the public toilet and take all
his clothes off because a man tapped him on the back in an airport.
We also recommend you take in this opinion
piece by Julian Assange, and this one by a Brit ex-pat
in Moscow.
After that feel free to complete the following questionnaire:
Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic
paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an
intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser
Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the
Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news.
Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA
stooge.
The force once again fails to materialise for Luke as TheRealNews Aaron Maté sends him
scurrying back to his conspiracy theories safespace during this brutal interview on Luke's
latest fictional release titled "Collusion".
Luke Harding's article on Grozny and Chechnya is a classic of the sour grapes variety. "The once war-torn country has been transformed, but change has come at a price"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/russia To the best of my knowledge, Chechnya is still enjoying its peace and prosperity –
totally unsupportable.
You have to remember that without old Luke we'd not have as much fun reading pages like
this!!! That's likely the only positive outcome of what he writes but a very important one.
In this 'insane asylum' light relief coupled with 'some decent perspectives' is a god
send. For those that like this page / the humour you might like this site: http://ckm3.blogspot.co.uk/
So, the time has come. Surrounded by the KGB (they no longer exist Ed) Surrounded by the KGB
(they no longer exist!! Ed) i, Luke Harding pen this my last will and testament. For though
the end has come, (Hurrah! Ed) my enemies made one final mistake, by thinking they could take
me alive. They left me the Book, the noble karma sutra
No Walter Mitty I, I carry no arsenic pills about me for such a mournful deed as this. No, I,
a writer, a cavalier of the epistolary kind, shall use The Book they left me on my bedside
table, the noble Kama sutra. And now, gently removing the cellophane – to my children I
bequeath my writing talent, to Pussy Minor disturbance (here he seems to be attempting to
outwit the KGB Ed.) my gift for self promotion, and to my wife, Phoebe, my greatest
possession, my reputation. And now, gently removing the cellophane, (you see, phoebe, your
bootless cries at bedtime fell not on deaf ears, I will use it once, as I promised) and
turning the page, I see the very position with which to foil my enemies (who must almost be
upon me, for I heard the catflap flap) – "Chicken Butter pasanda, also known as the
headless chicken". (How ironic, Ed.) Like the chicken, my head also shall be hidden from
view. Here goes! England, though I never knew you (very true, Ed) perhaps you will vouchsafe
me a place among the poets? Here goes again! Butter? Tick. Dilate? Tick. Bloody hell, I never
realised I had such a big head! Push! Push! They shall not catch me alive!
Like a candle in the wind .oooff! I really shouldn't have had extra beans. England, I do it
for thee! But hold, what's this I see? Tracks? Caterpillar tracks? Tank tracks?!! My god!
Wait till Shaun sees these, it's the biggest scoop of all time! And it's mine! I must stop
this foolshness now. KGB, be damned! Maybe they'll now take me back at the Daily Mail. I must
remove my head from my .
(at this point, the recording ends Ed. he will be missed Ed the world will be a sadder place
Ed there will be less laughter in the world without him. Phew. Got it. Ed)
Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and
The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another
guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics
course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other
work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding?
Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York
Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't
spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks
quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA?
I ventured out the next morning. My laptop was in the unlocked safe. (It didn't contain any
secrets; merely a work in progress.) A tall American immediately accosted me. He suggested we
go sightseeing. He said his name was Chris. "Chris" had a short, military-style haircut, new
trainers, neatly pressed khaki shorts, and a sleek steel-grey T-shirt. He clearly spent time
in the gym. Tourist or spook? I thought spook.
I decided to go along with Chris's proposal: why didn't we spend a couple of hours
visiting Rio's Christ the Redeemer statue? Chris wanted to take my photo, buy me a beer, go
for dinner. I declined the beer and dinner, later texting my wife: "The CIA sent someone to
check me out. Their techniques as clumsy as Russians." She replied: "Really? WTF?"
Shortly before I was banned from Komment Macht Frei, Mr. Harding popped up in the CiF column
in which I had just made a comment ridiculing his "journalism" to state that he believed that
I am probably a member of the FSB.
Luke Harding is not a journalist; he is the perennial centrefold in an imaginary magazine
called "Smug Prick". There is an irreconcilable gap between the Luke Harding he sees in the
mirror and the chowderhead we all know and mock. The Guardian keeps him on because it does
not give a tin weasel why you read, just as long as you read. It does not care if you do so
with gritted teeth, murmuring obscenities.
In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the
worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read.
When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were
insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside
opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part.
It did not take long for readers to start pointing out the hilarious lies, half truths and
smears in Mr Harding's articles.
How did he/they respond ?
Not only did he start moderating comments himself, he (and Shaun Walker) had readers
banned for highlighting the "inconsistency" in their reporting. Ha! Good luck with that.
It was quite pitiful to see him yesterday on the Grauniad's 'Troll Factory' story
maoaning, whining and blaming the readers for not beliveing his "truthful" reporting on
Russia haha.
It's going to be fascinating to see how he and his pals report the upcoming battle in
Syria between Russia/Syria/Iran/China VS America/ISIS/Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts."
That there is just pure gold, it was written as a serious piece but even if it wasn't it
would still be brilliant piece of comedy and sarcasm, but the fact that it's unintentionally
funny and not a sarcasm is what makes it one of the greatest arrangements of words ever. Man
sees an open window and "deciphers" that it was secret agents who opened it for the whole
purpose of leaving him a "message" and then "vanished like ghosts". A whole script from an
open window. Perhaps next time they will make an offer he can't refuse? Brilliant sketch,
someone mentioned Inspector Clouseau in the comments but I have to say that Clouseau has
nothing on this level of deduction skills, self importance and delusions of grandeur, or
delusions in general. I read that thing many times now and its still hilarious as first time
"The dark symbolism of the open window .."
There is a video of Carl Sagan where he explains how not to do science and logic and uses
clouds on Venus as an example how to get a grand and completely wrong conclusion out of
nothing, now know as The Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy:
"I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus. Why not? Because it's covered with a dense
layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, of course. Therefore, Venus must have
an awful lot of water on it. Therefore, the surface must be wet. Well, if the surface is wet,
it's probably a swamp. If there's a swamp, there's ferns. If there's ferns, maybe there's
even dinosaurs. -Observation: we can't see a thing on Venus. Conclusion: dinosaurs."
I think that Harding perhaps gave us even better example.
Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border
crossing with a Russian aid convoy. Despite there being a 5000 foot elevation between where he
actually was to where the border crossing was.Despite there being EU monitors at the border
crossing who did not see any tanks.When I pointed this out to Luke,as a comment on his
Guardian article,the article comments section disappeared and the placement of Russian tanks
at the border changed to a different border crossing.All of my previous comments were
purged,any other comments were moderated meaning an effectual ban and Luke carried on as if
nothing had happened.Something did happen,he stopped saying he personally saw Russian tanks
because he had been busted.In my opinion he is paid handsomely to post,anything,negative
against Russia and sometimes he just makes shit up when his wife needs a new kitchen
appliance.He is obviously a tosser to boot.
Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible
invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a
Russian tank.
Yeah that was good old shaun. shaun also saw a Russian vehicle somewhere in ukraine with peacekeeping symbols from
Chechnya. there was actually a photo of that one. unfortunately it was impossible to verify where and when the photo was taken and no other
such vehicle with those markings has ever been seen before or since in ukraine. the woman who supposedly took the photo had a long history of photographing Russia
vehicles in Chechnya.
Luke wouldn't even have taken any photos of the Russian tanks. He would have thought the
tanks were sent after him and he would taken off like a rabbit. Even if the tanks were going
in the other direction.
BTW Luke's wife Phoebe Taplin (also a journalist) wrote a series of books about walking in
Moscow at different times of the year according to season and exploring the city's parks and
open spaces on foot while they were stationed there. Folks, make of that what you will.
I think he has survived as a journalist which is in a way commendable. However, he irritated
Glenn Greenwald, when he interviewed him because Glenn could see the details Luke was
interested in writing about were literally going to be the material for a book, and I think
Glenn had not finished his own at that point! So a bit exploitive to say the least. It's an
irony that the Snowden film produced/directed by Oliver Stone is going to be based on Luke's
version not Glenn, guess who gains financially for example.
On the other hand, you have to give him credit for foresight – moving from the Daily
Mail to the Guardian before it was fashionable. Maybe his talents alone explain the lack of
substantive difference between these two organs of State.
If I didn't know that Luke Harding was a journalist, I'd have thought he was a comedian in
the tradition of Peter Sellers overdoing Inspector Clouseau in too many Pink Panther sequels.
Mr Harding is a huge threat to the ruthless Russian government due to his fearless
journalism, but rather than off him with some polonium tea or crumpets they decided to leave
a sex manual by his bed.
Was the idea that Mr Harding would die from over exertion?
Even the sudden appearance of the Kama Sutra in English by the bedside table would have
aroused LDH's suspicions. What, he would have wondered, were the terrifying secrets encoded
in the manual?
If there is a smoking gun that proves that Trump is beholden to Russia, I want to know about
it. Having slogged through this book, though, I can tell you that the smoking gun is not here.
That is disappointing, because the cover of the book implies that proof of collusion will be
provided. Instead, the book provides a series of "it seemed as if something more was going on"
types of speculations. It also restates everything you already know about the alleged
scandal.
Some readers will be happy with this book -- primarily those who are already certain that
Trump is controlled by Russia, despite the lack of evidence to that effect. If you are a
liberal looking for confirmation bias, this book will make you nod knowingly.
Other readers should note that this book accepts the controversial "Russian dossier" about
Trump on face value, even though the dossier has been debunked by Newsweek, Bob Woodward, and
others, while the New York Times (embarrassed by initially treating the dossier as legitimate)
has called it "unsubstantiated." This book's perspective on the dossier is to the left of even
the New York Times. At one point, the book references the publication Mother Jones as a
mainstream news source -- that says everything you need to know about the author's political
slant.
This book is very deceptive! beware of confirmation bias!
I just got through reading this and I have to say if you are looking for a book with
nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with
VERIFIABLE lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons, then this will be a delight
to read! This book will do nothing but reinforce your confirmation bias!
"... The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning. ..."
The New Zealand flagship National Radio channel recently played an interview of the above
mentioned plagiarist Luke Harding https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018624819
It is interesting to compare the free ride he is given by the interviewer, Kim Hill,
noticeably anti-Russian, and the far more intelligent approach from Aaron Mate of the Real
News.
The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a
state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning.
"... Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you. Peace. ..."
"... Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated, Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6. ..."
"... I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies. ..."
"... Wait. Did he say Steele was involved in the Ukraine Coup? :)) ..."
"... A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation. ..."
How can this guy write a whole book about the "collusion" and not give a single clear
proof in the interview. He is a prime example of the Russiagate supporters. Good Job
Aaron!
Aaron is boss in this interview... damn I've watched 5 mins so far and this "author" has
shown himself already to be a complete tool. The only opportunist I see here is him cashing
in on this anti Russian craze that only serve the interests of Intel agencies and the
Democratic party insiders.
Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That
is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt
on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault
of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a
book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar
situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is
irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it
the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this
writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you.
Peace.
Aaron Maté, you are gold. This so-called journalist was condescending and highly
unprofessional throughout the interview to point where he most likely cut the line because he
couldn't handle being interviewed by a real journalist and seeker of truth. His failure to
directly answer Aaron's questions regarding evidence of collusion show his inability to be
factual and impartial. The 'evidence' the author presents seems circumstantial at best and
unconvincing. Thank you, the Real News Network. Your high standard of journalism is always
appreciated by your loyal viewers.
I love you, Aaron. You and the Real New are one of the few who actually challenges this
ridiculous narrative. Trump is a horrible man but so is the rest of the US plutocracy. Making
him out as some sort of special sort of evil is pathetic. He wasn't hired because of the
Russians. He was hired because Americans cannot seem to understand that the changes they want
from the economic system here in this country will not happen if they exclusively use voting
as their change mechanism. Especially if they keep voting in the two fake opposition parties
for all positions. Also, Mr. Harding, we don't need to read your book. We've been hearing
this garbage through the mainstream media for over the last year. You are not providing
anything new or any actual proof.
Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "I was a Moscow correspondent for four
years!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "Trump is nice to Putin and rude to
other world leaders!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "What do you think
Russian spy agencies do all day if not spy? Huh?"
I despise Trump, but where the fuck is Harding's evidence for collusion? He responds to
direct questions with, "weeell..." and goes onto talking about obscure meetings with musical
producers or vague connections with Russian business men. Or, worse still, reminding us how
awful Putin is (what does that prove in regards to collusion?). And how dare he claim that
he's living in the "empirical world," when he can't substantiate his headline - collision.
Stunningly, he even suggests later on that skeptical people can't appreciate Putin! Cash-in,
little more. Good job, Aaron.
Luke is full of shit as he pushes hacking of the 2016 election. William Edward Binney[3]
is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security
Agency (NSA)[4] turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more than 30
years with the agency. He was a high-profile critic of his former employers during the George
W. Bush administration, and later criticized the NSA's data collection policies during the
Barack Obama administration. In 2016, he said the U.S. intelligence community's assessment
that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election was false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv0-Lnv0d0khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoeJeWfoSpQ
Aarons calm, but critical, questioning/demand for evidence is very refreshing. It has to
be very uncomfortable for a guest that is acustomed to mainstream neo-libs/con
journalists.
So this guy's whole body of evidence can be summarized as because Russia engages in
espionage then that proves the collusion? Great interview Aaron, he wasn't expecting you
to call out his bullshit, thought he didn't seemed at all phased by it. 10:30"I'm a story
teller." I think that sums this guy up pretty nicely.
Funny he lost his cool so fast and went into teacher mode, LOL! Good job interviewer this
is how "stories" get vetted no matter how favorable they are to you position. :o)
Watching this interview was like a breath of fresh air. You NEVER see a "journalist"
challenge their guests on network TV (probably because guests are pre-screened to fit the
prevailing orthodoxy). If we just had an army of Aarons doing the news, I think the world
would be in a lot better shape.
Good job, Aaron, thank you. It's not the first time I've been impressed by your objective
questioning and reasoning that may offend a guest but leads to the truth. Good, unbiased
journalism seems very rare these days
Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to
throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his
connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated,
Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6.
And I wouldn't be
surprised if he had done work for them, which means he effectively still works for them (you
never leave the intelligence club, you keep getting fat wads of cash on occasion while
understanding that very bad things will happen if you turn on them). Again and again, he
presented arguments which were whole cloth bullshit, either 'facts' that were proven untrue
(like the bare-faced lie about Russian interference in the French elections) with laughable
ease by Aaron, or threw a word salad of tales of nefarious Russia being nefarious to somehow
'prove' something completely unrelated, that Russia got Trump elected with a bunch of random,
laughably tiny, obtuse efforts (a couple of ads on FB, some supposed Twitter trolls, RT,
Pokeman f-ing Go (!) ) which are all that has been openly claimed.
And there is NO REAL
EVIDENCE for that crap either, just the word of the always trustworthy spooks (a hand
selected group from 3 agencies, btw) and some heavily leaned on establishment toadies in
Silicon Valley. This book (I am guessing here- no, I have not nor will I waste my time
reading it) appears to be a disgusting cash grab on the level of 'What Happened?', selling
self-serving vacuous BS to credulous morons looking to feel better about the epic failure of
their disgusting, characterless idol. Also will undoubtedly be a big hit with the McCain wing
of right wing nuts, who have been itching for the fun of a REAL WAR (oh boy oh boy oh boy!
mass tank clashes in Poland! carrier battle groups attacking Vladivostok!!!) with the always
evil Reds... errr, Russians.
Disinformation trolls like this guy are willing to put in their
two cents toward making that happen. How the fuck they look themselves in the mirror,
especially if the have young people they care about, baffles me. But considering the Oxford
background and government connections, his kids sure as hell won't be digging a trench
frantically in ESTONIA (which I also have heard of, btw, you pompous, pompous puke). THANK
YOU REAL NEWS! MORE LIKE THIS PLEASE!! :)
this is another nothing burger by a member of the UK MSM this time who should know better
- Citing Chris Steele as a source for info is a complete joke - this guy needs to go back to
Journo school .
What a great debate by Aaron. Slapped that jackass so many times & revealed how
deceptive & outright false his position is. He has no evidence & is so
condescending/arrogant despite the baselessness of his position.
I find blinking isn't usually a good sign - I do think Trump has had Russian money, some
of it laundered, through his properties for decades and Russians probably have enough to
place pressure on him in the same way Hillary could be compromised by Uranium One, he might
have considerable debts owing. However Trump like Tillerson/Exxon and many others just want
to get into Russia and start doing deals.
They are over this Brezinzski like need to crush
Russia for all time that the deep state has got lined up.
I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for
it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so
now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while
minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a
containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying
attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty
propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with
past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in
this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies.
A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on
abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real
investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview
about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation.
Luke is part of the UK metropolitan liberal elite. Still in shock that HRC was rejected by
the US voters . Still in shock that UK deplorables voted for Brexit . His monumental
arrogance is such that he believes we were too stupid to understand the issues and therefore
were 'guided' by Russian propaganda. Aaron exposes Lukes lack of evidence
perfectly.
Kudos to Aaron Mate and the Real News for asking Harding serious questions; the upshot is
that this Harding character did not have shit to prove that Russia meddled with the US
election. Good job Aaron Mate and the Real News.
"... Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. ..."
Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to
Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order
to please his masters.
I don't think that's far from the truth actually. As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and
Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at
university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding
is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were
recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain
why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald Trump. ..."
"... I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! ..."
"... DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to secure their systems and not click on phishing emails ..."
"... This seems like yet another attempt to divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been disproven ..."
"... I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending? ..."
Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between
Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking
secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and
occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by
every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all
three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives
us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning
every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald
Trump.
I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with
insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's
first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! [p219]. As someone who has spent
the past thirty-five years as a war correspondent and investigative journalist, I find it a
bit disappointing to think that this is the best the Left has to offer. A more shoddy piece
of work I have rarely seen.
DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING
with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The
knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to
secure their systems and not click on phishing emails.
This seems like yet another attempt to
divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have
some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is
laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been
disproven.
I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath
court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against
Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending?
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"! ..."
The Problem With Espionage The purpose of espionage is to keep your opponent at a
disadvantage by cultivating an alternate reality in their mind that is different from the
facts. Whatever the government or agency they work for an agent wants to distort your
impressions of them and their own personal capabilities. All agents want you to believe that
they don't have the capabilities, contacts, or powers that they actually do posses. By the
same token secret agents want you to believe that they DO have capabilities, contacts, or
powers that they, in fact, do NOT have. When deception is such an integral part of the game
you are playing it makes sense to assume that you know less than you think you do. That's
what actual journalism is about -- particularly when dealing with spies and espionage. In
this video Aaron Mate' is acting like a real journalist. Luke Harding is not. "Real News" is
getting the story right. Thank you! We need more real journalism.
Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the
middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and
call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"!
Imho, this guy's full of shit. Not quite ready for a 'Reynolds Wrap' hat, but seeing smoke
where there's mist. Takes me back to when there were definitely WMD's in Iraq. To TRN's
credit, they did give him a hearing. Which is more than the MSM gives to say, Chomsky or
Hedges.
He speaks Russian and has lived in Russia -- so I guess that settles it. LOL Maybe
somebody ought to ask Sarah Palin about it, since you can actually see Russia from parts of
Alaska. And the French intelligence report is inconclusive but if you get more context from
reading his book, you will see that it may be inconclusive but is actually conclusive. (It's
complicated.) And of course, he's lived in Berlin and he knows people there, so that proves
the German elections were hacked too. And only the most hidebound skeptic could fail to see
the smiley face connection. If you read his book you'll find out all this great context and
facts that prove the Russians did it. It's too bad he couldn't provide any of that for us in
this interview. (This whole thing has a sort of dog-ate-my-homework feel to it.)
The main question NOBODY'S been able to answer me is that "What policies has Trump
enacted, political, economic, military or otherwise, that benefits the interests of the
Russian state?" As far as I can tell, Trump is either indifferent to the interests of the
state of Russia, or is hostile, directly or indirectly, to them.
I tried really hard to follow this story as credible without prejudice and it was just a
bunch of babble without any evidence whatsoever.. this is just a re-print and re-title of the
Steel dossier updated with MSNBC and CNN reportage
This entire collusion scheme is occurring because the Democrats can't admit that Hillary
ran a horrible campaign and she's a murderer and a war criminal. I'm glad Mate is putting a
fire under Harding's arse and trying to make him accountable for these specious speculations.
I'm not a fan of either Putin or Trump, but this whole "scandal" has been little more than a
massive distraction. I've speculated that the entire election was a CIA psychological
operation to influence foreign policy to appease certain elements of the Deep
State.
I dislike Trump as much as the next man but when the Guardian publishes this BS it will
only bolster Trump when the lies dissolve over time and the facts eventually come out. Sadly
you might have never heard of Dr Udo Ulfkotte and his exposure that the CIA has an army of
journalists on its payroll, especially in Europe. So why are you not questioning the
integrity of this individual in more detail. These are the type of CIA and MI6 stooges that
Tony Blair used to promote the illegal war against Iraq. When this CIA stooge says,
08:25 "I
think that Russia played a role in last year's election is a matter of fact. This is only
what US intelligence agencies believe" he must be assuming the majority of the US population
are just ignorant fools. The US Intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had WMDs and the
British Intelligence believed Saddam was sourcing nuclear material from Africa. This
deceitful idiot Harding still pushes the idea the MI6 published Trump-Putin Dossier when it
has been shown it was paid for by the DNC. So would you believe any intelligence agency whose
motive is a push for war? And the best way to achieve this goal and have the misinformed
population back the corrupted corporate government would be to promote this BS from this
sleazy CIA puppet. If you get a chance, have a look at some other YouTube videos of the BS
this CIA journalist produces: "The KGB left a sex manual after breaking into my home" or
"Putin is Building an Empire" or the ever popular "Putin May Secretly Be One Of The World's
Richest Men". Then may I suggest you look at any story on Russia by the truth-tellers, the
whistleblowers that have actually been prosecuted for telling the truth in this fascist
system: William Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, or Ray McGovern. So there will always be
some imbeciles that believe this fabrication just as there were some that believed the New
York Times and the Washington Post about the Bush-Blair Iraq War rhetoric when the oligarchs'
real intentions were so clearly stated by General Wesley Clark in his admission of "7
countries in 5 years". I am interested to know if TRN approached Harding or Harding was
offered up to TRN as a CIA stooge to spew their propaganda. It is sad to see the Guardian
employ such a hack; sure they are now a mouthpiece for the Empire but they have done some
good work over the years. It is clear that Harding writes to influence the apathetic and the
stupid; he conflates innuendo and supposition with fact in his attempt to distort perception
and for the imbecile with no intellectual honesty; this is very effective. I find it
frustrating that TRN attempts to expose this garbage when the oligarchs' MSM would lap it up.
You would never hear the BBC or Maddow questioning this MI6-CIA stooge like Aaron Maté
did. Aaron has done a competent job; not an effective job like one would expect from Paul Jay
at questioning this farce but sadly, this is the best TRN has to offer. There will always be
a number of scared and pathetic individuals within the population that will always be
incapable of differentiating between fact and fantasy or between truth and lies. These are
the Useful Idiots of Empire and they have been used to justify and instigate Imperial
aggression since the beginning of time.
Maté wiped the floor with Harding. It's also interesting that Harding appeared to
confuse Russian espionage with what is essentially Mossad-driven sexpionage when he mentioned
the "swallows." He seems woefully ill-informed when it comes to dual nationality,
Russian-Jewish mafia ties with Israel and Anglo-American foreign policy. This is also why
Trump has been encircled with Russian corporate interests to a certain degree - they are
connected to Russian-Israeli underworld objectives. Hence, the real conspiracy here is via
Israeli intelligence working through its traditional syanim in both Russia and the United
States.
This lunatic Harding is trying to sell USA and CIA as pillars of truth, democracy and
integrity, playing positive role in international affairs. How stupid and sold can a writer
get?!
I love how this guy keeps harping the point that Mate should have read his entire book.
This is so sad to watch, our media should be as critical as this, and this shows how far they
are from that.
Interviewer: "Your book is called Collusion. What evidence do you present for an act of
collusion?" Author: "Well, you see, Russians are bad and they do bad things, and you have to
see a pattern of bad things, and Trump is bad, so <waves hands> you know, context."
Interviewer: "I didn't hear any actual evidence there" Author: "Did you read my book? Because
I say stuff in there that suggests that my title is true. Also, go to Russia and ask
Russians, because you can trust them about what they have to say about the US election. Don't
listen to me, listen to them." At this point I'm wondering if the author read his own
book...
That guy had become unhinged by the end of the interview. This is the same behavior I've
seen from Russia-gaters when every talking point they bring up gets immediately debunked. I'm
surprised he didn't start ranting xenophobic nonsense about how the interviewer was also a
Russian agent. I've seen this conversation play out this way so many times over the past year
that the fact we're still talking about this is asinine.
This is Journalism. You need to answer the questions with hard evidence, facts, links and
ties. Names, Dates, Times these have to add up. Donate to The Real News!!
Seems Luke wasn't expecting a grilling from an outlet like the real news. He's probably
not used to a left-leaning American news outlet that tolerates dissenting opinions on the
Russia narrative. A sad reflection on what the atmosphere must be like at the Guardian.
Thanks again Aaron.
This is a great exchange between a believer of Russiagate and a sceptic. Both guys did a
great job pushing their arguments. Shame you don't see this on the msm. They're too busy
pushing their editorial lines instead of being challenged.
What is easier? Russia pulling off collusion OR Russia convincing idiots that they pulled
off collusion. I think that both have the same effect on delegitimizing our electoral
process, one is just a lot easier.
ALSO if the kgb is so good and so well trained at this then why is it so obvious? The
perfect crime is one that your enemy thinks you committed yet has no proof of, because
spoiler, you didn't commit it.
Thank you Aaron for being a JOURNALIST unlike the guy trying to well a book, why not every
body ids entitle to profit from a nation which from here seem to be populated by MORONS! The
Guardian lost its way back in 2001 by toeing the official White House Line, it asked very
little questions, it was very thick on speculation (a bit like this moron)!
This "author" or hack journalist is absolutely ignorant. Clearly he hates Russia and Puti.
And is just fine to create lies and stories. This was a great interview by Aaron! Excellent
job asking valid, intelligent questions and holding his feet (and fables) to the fire. People
creating and spreading this type of propaganda should all be held to the standards Aaron just
held this doofus to! When asked real questions, for proof of their statements of fact and
confronted with opposing information, you just get stuttering and the same old line of Putin
is bad so therefore my lies must be true! No proof yet people r still writing books and
profiting from spreading a very dangerous type of propaganda!
This is hilarious. Everytime TRN interviews anyone about the Russian case, they - the
interviewee - ends up being flustered, frustrated. I am waiting for that obscenities laden
outburst one of these interviews
Very good Aaron! Finally someone's called out the fabulilt Harding, arguably the worst
Anglophone reporter from Russia, and there's stiff competition.
I'm getting fed up with this shit. Trump just sent lethal weapons to Ukraine. This guy and
his administration have done nothing but escalate tensions with Russia since he took office.
Sanctions, banning RT, Syria strike, buzzing Russian jets, the latest Ukraine BS, that Obama
refused to do because it would escalate tensions. I wish this guy was Putin's puppet, but he
is more likely to give us a nuclear exchange with Russia.
It was the USSR until 1991, then the US Oligarchs pillages the New formed Russia.I don't
even think that Psychics would have fathomed Trump ever running for President 35+ years
later... Idiot....
Trump is crocked in my opinion, but who cares about my opinion--NO ONE. So why don't we
just wait for the evidence to come forward after the investigation. If he is guilty of
something then we will know. Clearly Mueller and his team is NOT going to put evidence out in
the public if indeed they do have something at this time. So everyone is just speculating,
BUT that does not mean the investigation should be over because SOME people feel there is
nothing there. That just does not make sense to me. Let the investigation conclude just like
they wanted it to conclude when Bill Clinton. By the way, he should read the book (not skim
it) and then get quotes to ask. The author is right to call out the interviewer for not
reading his book, but wants to talk about---the BOOK! Really?
Just what is the proof that Trump is Putin's puppet? Is it the NATO troops moving ever
eastward in Europe, holding war games on Russia's borders? Is it the extra billions earmarked
for nuclear war preparations? Or perhaps the US troops and bases illegally placed in Russia's
ally Syria? One has to be an idiot to believe this Russiagate nonsense.
Luke Harding is so full of shite, I'm surprised it's not oozing out of his pores. He says
nothing new in this interview he just rehashes the narrative. Intentionality? Luke is
obviously not used to being questioned on his storytelling.
This fella seems to be more interested in advertising his book than answering the
questions. These Guardian article writers may as well write for Daily Express or The Sun or
any other gutter press
I wonder if Luke Harding thought that doing this interview would sell a few copies of his
book. If so, he will be disappointed - he doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable, to say the
least.
this guy is pissed of with Putin, and thinks he knows everything just because he is a rich
boy from Oxbridge elite, yet this wanker has not a single fact supported with solid evidence.
That sums up the state of liberal fascists. Oh God!
Harding never voiced any proof or real evidence of collusion. Speculation, speculation,
speculation and inference. I'm so tired of this. And yes, Putin's not a nice guy.
The guy said go to Russia, meet Navalny (a man with less than 1% support)..lol. go to any
country on earth and meet the opposition and see if they will have anything positive to say
about the running government.. they are opposition for a reason... smh
I heard a really, disappointing softball interview on KCRW (NPR affiliate in LA) with this
same author where he was presenting correlations as causation and making the same broad
generalizations with nary a challenge from Warren Olney (who could be an excellent
interviewer) , but rather exclamations of approval. Aaron Mate on the other hand does a
fabulous job of showing the Emperor has no clothes. So, big big kudos to him for leaving this
fraud in a stumbling, stuttering pout of ineffective arguments. This author is at best making
a buck jumping on the Russian hysteria bandwagon, and at worst is part of a concerted
propaganda effort by those who would benefit from a new Cold War. One can oppose Trump for
not only his vulgarity but more importantly he does, policy-wise. Unfortunately, many of
those policies are the same or just a bit more radical than many of the politicians whose
style is less overly vulgar and divisive.
At the end Harding implies that definitive proof of collusion would be Trump and Putin in
a sauna. That would actually only be proof both men like a good steam.
Luke: There are only two honorable ways to respond to the charge of lack of proof for your
bold claims. 1. Point to proof 2. Admit there is no proof. Only a pathetic weasel with zero
intellectual integrity would take another course. After this interview I don't even believe
you know any Russian beyond "can I have the check please" Oh, and Hillary Clinton is a
deranged mad woman. Who else would laugh like a hyena about being accessory to Qaddafi's
gruesome murder?
Mate' is nobody's fool. This is what an interview should be, not a beaming love-fest
between "journalist" and guest. It's wonderful to see a strong journalist who's informed and
not rubber-stamping BS to crawl up the ass of someone with connections. You go, Aaron!!! Much
respect to RT.
Aaron. Probably the best journalistic interview that I have ever seen. Anyone watching
this will realise this collusion stuff is nonsense. And yes, i despise Trump and Putin's
corruption.
"The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or
hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled
Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken
apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there
is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his
assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: its
fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian
Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as
plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct
Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology."
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/27/from-snowden-russia-gate-cia-and-media.html
Thank you, Aaron, for convincingly exposing a shill for the Imperialist agenda and
committed cheerleader for the "deep state." Harding could do nothing more, in the face of
demands for evidence, than splutter endlessly on irrelevancies and assertions that the
Russians don't like us (gee, I wonder why not?!?!?). Excellent job Aaron: you are a credit to
true journalism.
This is the best video on the Russiagate conspiracy theory I have seen all year. I wish
people would remember that there is equal evidence that the US kills journalists; when you
hear people say that about other countries they're clearly propagandists.
That was awkward viewing.....but you can see why people like me in England went from
buying the guardian everyday to being dismayed to see the publication have such a skewed
agenda on politics that I now avoid clicking on their online articles. Basically the media
here is "London thinks this, so you should too"
Your sign off with a plug for the propagandist book, despite his abrupt fleeing of your
interview, was very civilised. Great job, I enjoyed the squirm and deflecting done by Luke. I
think he was well grilled by the time he left.
It should be acrime for so called Journalists to be allowed to propagate this abaloute
disgraceful nonsense. The guy is talking about 1987 - a single time Trump visited Russia
during the 80's. Next time he wsa there was about 5 years ago for miss universe contest. Yet
this is evidence or him being a Russian puppet. Total nonsense! No, this is communists
realizing Trump is a sledgehammer to their narrative. They are looking at political
wilderness across the west if Trump can do what he wants to do so in desperation they attempt
to drag out anything they can to keep their bs narrative going even going back almost 30
years...
Just to be clear: Russia hacked both DNC and Macron emails, and released them, mixed with
false information, in a disinformation campaign. The DNC emails became source of conspiracy
on facebook. Macron emails were never allowed to be published in any form.
When subjected to some skepticism, Harding's assertions collapse into vague "because the
intel agencies told us" nonsense. Hats off to Aaron for knocking down the Russia hysteria
once again.
Pretty embarrassing interview with this British guy... When he gives that snarky "oh too
bad you didnt read the book.." line i really wanted to hear the interveiwer say "Oh its
really too bad you didnt think to memorize one fact about the subject your being interveiwed
about..."
Now he leans on whether Aaron has read the whole book or not. I know I won't read it, as
the man as not said a convincing word in the entire interview.
Russiagate is a conspiracy theory. Let's be frank. It presupposes it's conclusion and
finds circumstantial and hearsay evidence to support it. "Collusion-rejectionist" Mate points
this out time and time again (not only to this guy) and this guy says 'go talk to people; the
russians do things this way; everybody knows; you are a fringe character for not agreeing' -
it just doesn't hold water. No doubt Trump has shady deals with Russians among others. The
idea that such a buffoon been cultivated since the mid-80s by the KGB as a Manchurian
Candidate wouldn't make for a plausible pop spy thriller plot - maybe a good satire of one,
however.
Omg this was fun. Btw, we can all agree that Pyutin made Luke to wrote that idiotic book
just to toss a doubt how he did not collude with Tryump, because there's no limit of his
cunningness.
Luke's stories, just like the whole collusion theme, is a nothing burger left out of the
fridge too long. So now it stinks and needs to be thrown in the garbage where it
belongs.
He probably published the book half cooked just for the best timing of the sale. Maybe
they need a better guests? This doesn't prove anything that Trump is clear of the
allegation.. Far from it. Probe will continue.
Crappiest interview ever. You don't read the book and then you spout your pre-conceived
notions of the its subject matter. Cherry on top, with a pro-Trump bias.
He obviously didn't bother to read the book , why bother to interview the guy ? They are
talking past each other , if he had read the book they could have had a descent debate . This
is as bad a Fox News segment . Terrible .
This clown only response is to stammer and stutter until the regurgitated corporate
propaganda eventually spews out of his mouth with very very little confidence lol
This conspiracist has not listened to Putin speak. If he had, he would not be painting
such a one-dimensional, comic book character of him. Can we please move on from such naively
simplistic analyses of global power structures? Any leader unable to manage Intelligence is
at the mercy of a Deep State -- as we have learned time and again in the US. Before
cheerleading for World War, start by watching some of the hours and hours of footage showing
Putin engaging deeply with citizens and world leaders. Try critiquing that. Maybe learn some
history.
In watching the video interview it is obvious this 'Journalist' has his own Personal
Agenda regarding Putin and wants to get Putin any which way he can even if it means lying to
the America People. He is no true journalist. Great Interviewer!
The more I hear "experts" push this stupid Russia-phobic conspiracy theory the less I
believe it...This is why I like the Real news and you're worth supporting. You haven't fallen
for the mainstream narrative... There are many legitimise things to criticise Trump on. The
Trump-Russia conspiracy theory is NOT one of them.
Opposition Research on oligarch Hillary and Don Jr goes to find out what they've got.
That's it? We already know that the DNC emails were an inside job and subsequent DNC coverup
to blame Russia. We KNOW that (see VIPs report on consortium.) Stop blaming Russia! Luke
Harding is a delusional red-baiting Russophobe. Were I the Guardian, I would sack him! He's
an embarrassment! Don't buy his book!
Hillary's rush to threaten military action toward Russia over leaked/hacked DNC e-mails,
which simply exposed some of their corruption during the Democratic primary process, likely
did more to further harm her chances in the general election than any memes or any efforts by
anybody else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz_dZ2SlPgw
aaron mate! thank you for putting this Guardian hack into account! brilliant stuff! once
more the Real News is exceeding my expectations, this was superb journalism and holding the
media gatekeepers an extension of the establishment into account.
Luke kinda had his mind made up prior to setting up this interview. Russian collusion?
IDK, but let's just see what turns up. Mueller's already indicted some people. The issue with
the Russia investigation is the excitement over it on both sides. Everyone needs to just lay
back and let it happen regardless of how you feel. Close your eyes and think of England, and
maybe something comes out of it. I would rather we were investigating how we got into Iraq
and the abuses that happened after we invaded, but no one should be opposed to an
investigation where people have already been indicted. Media pushing the war with Russia
narrative are being silly, but the same with media saying we shouldn't investigate anything
about this. ON the left we also shouldn't expect too much to come from this. Great if we can
use this investigation to get Trump out of office for something; if not, useful political
theater if the Dems would just recognize the importance of that.
How fair to give him a platform. Will you invite Alex Jones next? How about some flat
earthers? ahh right, it's only ok when it's mainstream conspiracy theory, sorry, totally
forgot
Aaron challenges Russia assertion : Guy goes onto tell some story how he lived there and
he just knows "Believe him" Because he lived in Russia for 4 years... ??????????? Goes to
assert further... Aaron responds.. "proof" Response to that "Well the history from the
1970's.... " PROOOOOF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Look. I am fine with the fact that Russia might have
interfered with the election. JUST GIVE ME SOME FUCKING PROOF. Until then? Fuck off... There
are real problems to deal with.
LOL I loved Mate's performance in this interview. He totally flipped the script on this
crackpot realist. He felt like a dissenting person feels on MSM, if they ever bother to have
one on.
Telling how this "person" being interviewed spouts of a word like empirical when it comes
to an accusation with no supporting evidence so to him if you are accused of something that
in itself is empirical evidence?=horse shit propagandist no offense to horses. He first won't
accept there is no proof but when asked what the proof is he starts talking about his
personal feelings as if they are proof(superiority complex).
So? The "real" news is now doing book-promos? Shame on you - this is unmitigated garbage.
(edit: after watching the whole article, I'm still not satisfied. The problem with a public
"hatchet-job" is you give oxygen to your "victim" and get seen with a hatchet in your hand.
That does not look good. And in your victim's dying breaths, he will plant a curse on you via
those who saw you with the hatchet. Sun Tzu warns us to not give your enemy no-way-out ..
your forces are no match to those fighting for their very lives. It is abundantly clear from
the actual evidence that the 2016 election was willfully lost by Hillary Clinton, not won by
Trump. This is a result of Clinton being high in the cluster-B spectrum -she gets sexual
pleasure from torture and ugly death [Qaddafi] - whereas, Trump is lower on the spectrum: not
a sociopath/psychopath, but clearly a narcissist bordering on malignant. And I pause to add
that probably ALL global leaders are on the cluster-B spectrum of personality disorder. The
thing you have to know about cluster-B in this context, is that those within the cluster-B
are outside of normal social influence, such as "honey-traps" etc, because they lack the
compassion link to empathy - i.e. they do not respond to the tools which work on healthy
humans and tend to only respond to their own "world-view" in which the entire universe is
composed of themselves. Next: I tried to influence the US election by donating to Sanders -
so who is investigating the Australian "collusion" .. gimme a break - we all wanted Sanders.
Clinton gave us the choice of a sociopath against a narcissist - and we chose the narcissist.
And there he is doing the work he was made to do - to destroy the entire world-order so we
can, at least, start over. With Clinton - we all knew - it was lights-out for all of us. At
least with trump, the game is still in play. The lesser of evils. SO stop giving gas to the
commercial-distractionists - they are remnants of the lights-out brigade who are eating,
drinking, and being merry, because tomorrow, they intend to die .. the self-condemned. And
none of them asked me, or any of the others who would like to see life continue. The whole
thing disgusts me - dust your feet and leave the show - the finale is not worth sticking
around for.)
PS: NSA is currently monitoring, downloading and repeatedly viewing some of our children
for "security reason" ... Youth who are legally earning a living in the US as porn stars on
the net in order to eat, get an education pay student loan debt and survive in a nation which
gives little F about providing the true security realized via the the provision of privacy,
organic food from local heritage seed, pure potable H2O, clean air, access to free Integrated
Medicine, free and equal education and a comfortable roof over their heads, NOT based on how
much potential they have to move money for the corporatist-elite or the ethnicity of their
forefathers. How low will, WE stoop? @TheRealNews Pathetic
Aaron Mate that was absolutely BRILLIANT!!! You picked his bullshit story apart. Another
journalist making money on Russiagate. I can't believe I called him a journalist. Bill Binney
has already solved the hacking issue....lets move on. Awesome interview. Keep up the great
work...I bow to you.
I've never heard of the interviewer needing to read the book before interviewing the
author? Isn't it the author's "job" to plug his own book and inform the viewers of its
contents? It's really obvious that Harding had nothing to counter with- it was awkward to
watch as his Russian gate conspiracy fell to shit. Great job Mate!
Ugh. Another opportunistic "journalist" trying to capitalize on Russia panic (PUTIN!).
Great interview. You gave him plenty of time and room to make his case, and he just couldn't
seem to defend his position.
The Guardian was once a respectable news outlet. It both saddens and angers me that
journalists such as Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, neither of whom seem to have any real
grasp on the subjects they cover, are touted by The Guardian as leading experts on Putin and
Russia. Almost as embarrassing as anger-making.
Sadly typical of what the Guardian has become. This reminds me why I can't read it
anymore, just too much bullshit and innuendo sold off as fact. Good work, Aaron.
Aaron: "Are you inferring that because two Russians used a smiley face that's proof that
Manafort's associate was a tool of the Russian government?" 20:23 . HaHaHa!!! I don't miss
Louis CK anymore. This is the goddamn funniest shit ever!
Donald Trump just authorized the sale of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine. This ensures
that fighting will intensify on Russia's border. We can thank Russia conspiracy theorists
like Rachel Maddow, Marcy Wheeler and Luke Harding for providing a media environment that
enabled/pushed Trump to move in this direction. Mission accomplished, propagandists! World
War 3 in 2018?
the only collusion i saw in 2016 was rothschild zionazis, saudi arabia, isis, israhell,Fox
msnbc cnn trump, and clinton against bernie sanders and the people
''Kind of, sort of....air quotes...sort of...'' If Trump colluded with anyone it was
Netanyahu and other ultra nationalist Zionists inside Washington and Tel Aviv. It certainly
is not in the interests of America to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And who
is Gerard Kushner batting for? America...or Israel?
This Harding hack is a perfect example of why The Guardian - a once proudly liberal
publication - has become another neoliberal propaganda rag. He also wrote articles cheering
ISIL in Syria, literally comparing them to the Republican Brigade who went to Spain to fight
against the Franco Fascists in Spain in the 1930s.
No, "you don't have to just take a look", this is more BULLSHIT for book sales. No way
Russia colluded in the election, no hacking either. This Russia story was thought up by
Podesta back in 2015. Peace
"I'm a writer & I once lived in Russia so I have to be right!" AND he says, "I'm a
storyteller." Well, that's the problem. Storytelling is also a synonym for lying.
That so-called journalist was so obviously bereft of facts and wore his blatant biases
proudly. That kind of crap might play well on MSM shows, but doesn't work very well with a
well-informed and neutral interviewer. Well done. "Collusion"? Maybe "My Cold War Fantasy
World" would have been a better title for his book.
Excellent interviewer, disappointing interviewee. Harding's red herrings, guilt by
association, appeals to "context," and repeated well-poisoning do not constitute
*evidence*.
It is because of these journalists is why I believe journalism is no longer a professional
of finding and presenting the truth. It's more of floating around a narrative to serve the
interests of their masters
The disturbing thing about this interview is Luke Harding not only is unable to respond to
Aaron's request for evidence but he doesn't even seem to understand that his conclusions are
based on surmise and implications gleamed from irrelevant material. I have to assume Harding
has had some education in the journalistic rules of evidence, at least enough to land a
prestigious job with the Guardian. And yet he is not only unable to submit forensic evidence
of collusion between Trump and Putin but he doesn't seem to understand what would be required
to actually identify that evidence to make his case. I have to assume the book only relies on
inference and innuendo to establish its case: Putin is a bad man who will resort to anything
to achieve his ends, hence he is guilty of resorting to any means to influence a Trump
victory. This kind of "evidence" only goes to motivation and says nothing about ability or
opportunity. (two of the three linchpins of circumstantial evidence. Of course this kind of
shoddy thinking is nearly endemic today among not only journalists and pundits, who ought to
know better, but also among the general public (most of my friends in particular). This
epidemic is so vast and persistent that I am afraid it will only be staunched by a
thermonuclear war. "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we
were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time:
the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality,
usually on a battlefield." George Orwell
This guy is Mr Word Salad, Aaron really twists his balls in the best possible way. What a
pathetic shill, you can tell this idiot works for the Guardian. "Where is the evidence of
collusion?" "Putin is bad." "Yes but where is the evidence?" "Estonia, France, my friends
died, Putin is bad." "Where's the evidence?" "Putin is bad." Idiot.
It's ironic that Mate presents himself (by virtue of the association implied with Real
News) as somehow different from the (again implied) not-so-real news and then pursues a
pretty familiar "gotcha" approach to this interview. Mate appears more interested in proving
himself correct with his skepticism rather than at all curious about the author's point of
view as it applies to his work. This is more of the Same News I think. Or at least the same
games that talking heads favour. Mate, in addition, seems very amused with himself. That's
hardly productive to anyone interested in learning something about the author or the author's
premise.
I love how Aaron is making this guy squirm with simple, logical questions. Taking the
guest's own advice, he should venture out into the reality world out of his book's bubble.
The icing on the cake is when the guest starts (around 8 minute mark) flailing his arms like
a monkey in a zoo, to the delight of children observing the animal.
No offense to my Estonian friends, but Harding using them as an example of the broader
hacking trend seems bullshitty to me. I don't think any leftists skeptical of the Russiagate
narrative would say that Russia doesn't hack, or Russia doesn't attempt to influence foreign
elections. But if you're going to say that Russia has the capacity to do it in the USA,
showing they did it in France or Germany would be a decent analog, Estonia (formerly occupied
by the USSR and in Russia's sphere of geopolitical influence) is not. Am I missing
something?
It is NOT about Donald Trump. It is about USA and the foundational principles of our
democracy. IF there is even a small chance that the formation of our government is influenced
by the forces from a hostile nation, this IS the problem. Go to hell Aaron Mate. Idiot Aaron,
go to Russia and meet and the HR activists and see what the country is truly like before you
interview, mofo idiot Aaron Mate
Even if Putin directly helped trump get elected using his own personal computer, these ppl
are gonna fuck up proving it up tripping all over themselves with adolescent anticipation and
opportunism
Sounds like the Brits are stirring the pot, bringing the Russian 'axis of evil' back into
the mix. Think.. Did we ever have US sovereignty? What really happened back in 1775? Maybe
the US is just the military arm of the UK and is still hell bent on achieving global
domination after all. And the US has been annexed by them all along. Why else is this Brit
demanding that the Russians are still a cold war enemy when Trump obviously has nothing
against them? I'm having serious questions as to the strategic alliance and geopolitical
relationship we have with Britain because of this guy's views. That being said, there may
well have been collusion by the Russians to help Trump get into office. But that alone, still
doesn't prove Russia the 'axis of evil' or anything near to being our enemy. It's about
global domination. The NWO remember? The Brits/Rothschild banking cartel have been hell bent
for it for centuries. Russia? Not so much.
Mr. Harding is definitely having a hard time finding any collusion and he wrote the book
on it!? Instead of addressing our unfair, closed and black box elections we waste time on a
guy who can't seem to form a coherent sentence!?
Although there may have been collusion, Russia did not help Trump win. Hillary's record
helped Trump win. After learning of her speech to Wall st., it made it impossible for me to
vote for her. How dare she tell them one story and tell us what she thinks we want to
hear.
great interview Aaron, i also am very skeptical of the whole "Russia did it" meme. great
job asking for proof, i didnt hear any either, color me not impressed with the interviewee or
his hypothesis,
Manafort was a recommendation of Roger Stone, friend of Trump. Manafort and Stone had
companies together since the eighties. Harding doesn't know what he is talking
about.
Wow, a real journalist. MSM would have covered this conspiracy theory as absolute truth.
No questions asked, which is why nobody trusts them. Harding has nothing but speculation and
an obvious bias. I wonder who paid him to write the book.
Ooh this Harding dude was squirming in his shoes. At the end, very sweatie, voice is
cracking. It's impressive how he's able to lie for so long but he stayed consistent with his
questioning
Given Harding's long chain of illogical arguments in this interview, I suspect his four
year stint in Russia was heavily influenced by Russian vodka, from which he has yet to
recover.
That included a lot of criticism of Russia and Putin for a supposed Russian controlled new
out let. Again, there is no direct evidence of collusion and no evidence that Russia cost
Clinton the election
The guy's got nothing. I'd love to see some real proof but this guy is equivocating at
every turn. Re: the "France hacks" he says it was "inconclusive" but due to a laundry list of
unrelated other examples of Russians possibly doing some nefarious stuff he's willing to
accept it as a fact. That is not what I would call "empirical." "Muckraking" would be a
better term...
this poor conspiracy author was depthcharged by this artfull and rather demeaning
interviewer. it demonstrates the need to be able to back claims unless they are presented as
theories. I have not read this book but apparently claims were made as"common knowledge" that
could not be supported by "empiracle data". this also points out why no massive claims have
been announced by Mueller's team. all conclusions must be backed by solid data. I believe one
would be naive to conclude anything from this interview except that claims made in this book
are not supported by accepteddata -- yet.
Much like the circular arguments put forth by the pro Hillary anti Stein people. No matter
how much you request the EVIDENCE they keep repeating suspicion, someone said, everyone
knows....and CANNOT produce any evidence....and do not understand how that type of response
is acutely reminiscent of Joe McCarthy waving of the paper with those names...one never gots
to see.
On the allegation of Russian meddling in the French election, if I remember correctly, it
was not Putin who cut a campaign video ad for one of the candidates, I remember correctly, it
was Obama who cut a campaign ad for the French Candidate who won.
The reason mainstream media focuses on Russia is because of ratings but it is a huge
nothing burger. No proof no real connections and all the "smoking guns" turned out to be
cigarette lighters and the lamestream never retracts it or anything just goes on like all is
well. Good to see some journalistic integrity. The author was making a leap from "He's a
repressive dictator ao he must be guilty" with no evidence at all.
Excellent interview Aaron. Crushed it. Your guest has 28 minutes to make at least one
salient point and he is unable to do that. Wow! However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
for the next Russiagate shill to consent to an interview with you though Aaron. Just saying!
:) :) PS - Oh, darn, I forgot and gave you the secret code of two Emoji smilies!
Drats!
Luke Harding talks like he presumes all the rest of us just fell off the turnip truck 10
minutes ago. Uh... yeah dude... we DO know the history of the KGB and FSB, and yeah dude, we
know about "honey pots" and that KGB and _______________________ (fill in Intel agency
of your choice____) did them too... for... oh... lets see... a few centuries anyway. So what
are you trying to sell? You constantly keep using past circumstance as "proof" when it is no
such thing. You would get thrown out of a court for that... and ANYONE capable of critical
thinking knows, all you are selling is "LOGICAL FALLACIES". Hey... I don't dispute that you
will surely sell copies of your book to low information Kool Aid drinkers (You going to cite
THAT as proof that your book is "true" now as well?)
Is there any empirical evidence of Trump/Putin collusion in this fairy tale? Lol Why does
Luke insist we read this without providing real, objective evidence? He expects us to just
take his and his "sources'" word for it?
Re-watching this interview, I'm absolutely astounded by the vacuity and ridiculous
attempts on the part of Harding to misdirect the conversation at the same time that he tries
to prop up his own credibility. This is literally a primer in the 'art' of
Imperialist/careerist 'journalism.'
Why H.R.C. 'lost'? "And it's deadly. Doubtless, Crosscheck delivered Michigan to Trump who
supposedly "won" the state by 10,700 votes. The Secretary of State's office proudly told me
that they were "very aggressive" in removing listed voters before the 2016 election. Kobach,
who created the lists for his fellow GOP officials, tagged a whopping 417,147 in Michigan as
potential double voters."
http://www.gregpalast.com/trump-picks-al-capone-vote-rigging-investigate-federal-voter-fraud/
"it's opportunistic it's very often 04:45 pretty low-budget the kind
of hacking 04:47 operation to hack the
Democratic Party 04:49 was done by two separate
groups of kind 04:52 of Kremlin hackers
probably not owning 04:54 kind of huge sums of money
and and so 04:58 some of it is kind of
improvisational 05:00 the most important thing
is that you you 05:02 have people with access
which in this . . . " Wikileaks hacked the Democratic Party?
Oregon's Democrats vote for and support attacks on our civil liberties, love the emergence
of censorship in social media and the press, vote for the criminalization of protest, vote
for the militarization of police and the unconstitutional massive expansion of the
surveillance state. Democrats Hate All Life on Mother Earth. Love torture. Love Killing
millions of brown folk overseas. Democrats are steamy piles of Horse Manure. Republicans
& Democrats are criminal organizations and are EVIL and war for profit groups; they do
the bidding of foreign dictators before they listen to the American People.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Hi NRDC; I have made many monetary contributions to your organization. You are evoking the
fear of Trump in this year end fund drive. Fighting against Trump is a democratic stance.
Democrats cheated Bernie Sanders and gave us Trump; both parties are corrupt and enemies of
all life on earth. Your organization is used for politics chiefly. I will find organizations
to donate to that are for the people, not war and corruption and not run by selected leaders
picked for their political powers and hate of common man and that actually love Mother earth.
Politics is 100% lies and that makes you guys liars and cheats just like the democrats.
Oregon Green Energy
Harding, show us the evidence. If you had any real, objective evidence, you would all want
to share it. You have shared NOTHING. None of you Russia-gaters share anything other than
circumstantial. Nobody who is "skeptical," or who uses logic and critical thinking skills has
ever said Russia and Putin weren't shady and oppressive, but that is not the
argument.
Why on Earth isn't Mueller investigating radical democrats for embezzling taxpayer money
for the Climate Change hoax? Maybe Mueller needs to be investigated for fraud and collusion
with North Korea and Iran.
Nice job of keeping this insane relentlessly endless narrative of Russian's changing the
election in any meaningful way. This is McCarthyism the modern day Maddowism. It's all
mainstream wants to talk about. Meanwhile in real life: 1) The majority of the population
doesn't have $500 in the bank to cover emergencies. 2) The War Machine continues to ramp up
to epic levels 3) The USA continues to employ their regime change diplomacy 4) The Life
Expediency in the USA is going down. Opiod's largely to blame 5) The USA is not even in the
top ten among providing Quality Healthcare 6) The USA is Number ONE in passing on the HIGHEST
COST Healthcare I could go, on it's exhausting....
This man is delusional there is no evidence of any collusion why is RealNews interviewing
this hack...watch Aaron Mate show this hack up. The Guardian is a right wing rag now don't
follow it end any association with them. Aaron Mate well done.
The DNC/Hillary corruption was revealed in the emails and they have successfully
distracted the public with a the dangerous fabrication of Russia collusion when the
conversation should be about the corruption of the democratic process. There are too many
complicit media and politicians so willing to go along with it but thankfully most Americans
are awake to the scheme.
In order to read the book I would have to buy the book, get it? An author should be able
to articulate their main arguments in an interview. The emoticons colluding was disturbing
though.
If you ask for actual facts of collusion you are a 'collusion rejectionist'. Hillarious.
Harding is a 'collusion conspiracy theorist'. Harding throws in the murder of Litvinenko as
if this, in any way, relates to the US election. It doesn't. Yes, Russian, US and Israeli
Intelligence kill people regularly for political reasons. Do I need to give Luke Harding a
history lesson? The smiley face emoticon issue, which Harding tried to swerve away from,
shows the level of journalistic quality Harding delivers. Harding deals in smear, supposition
and innuendo to sell books. The misleading cover and title show his journalistic credibility.
He actually raised as evidence of collusion, that Trump wasn't rude to Putin in interviews.
Is he serious? What a hack writer. As a side note, the CIA wrote the book in interfering in
other country's elections and governments. This indignation is a joke. If this is true they
finally got some of their own back. See how it feels?
For the record, this is what these people sound like on Tucker Carlson, too. Tucker had
Adam Schiff on and subjected him to real questions rather than the head-nodding interviews
Schiff is used to. Needless to say, Schiff hasn't been on Tucker Carlson's show since. Pretty
soon they'll start calling people skeptical of the evidence provided thus far "collusion
deniers".
Noted right-wing hack Jeremy Scahill has it exactly right. This guy Harding is just an
opportunist who knows what the audience wants. And he knows that 99% of the people who cite
the book will never read beyond the cover; in fact, he's counting on it. Expect the rest of
his little book tour to look like this: CNN, NPR, BBC, The Young Turks, The David Pakman Show
(tee hee), Huff Po etc etc
*You really should have read the book though. You could have seen that coming a mile away.
Why give him the out? Read the book before you attempt to trap someone with it. You should
still marry me though.
Harding threw all the red herrings he could find! Just because the man has a British
accent doesnt make him above scrutiny. Remember Louise Mensch? This was the sum (or scam) of
all fears: the Cold War , "repressive regime, "opposition crackdown" ,Soviet KGB, throw in
bits of Russian words.This was funny & painful at the same time. I nearly fell off my
chair when Aaron said "emoticons", that part was kinda
surreal.Talk to my friends! Go to Russia! I lived in Russia! I talked to the opposition!
I speak Russian! I thought he was gonna add: my best friends are Russian! My wife is
Russian!Niding is right Luke wasnt prepapred at all.Was it me or was Luke perspiring because
he was struggling? Why was he throwing air quotes? Thanks Aaron!
Brutal interview and painful to watch. I never believed in the Trump/Russia collusion fake
narrative. It doesn't exist. It was made up (FBI insurance policy) against Trump.
Great job Aaron to hold this author's feet to the fire and discredit his conclusions of
Trump/Russian collusion. I hate Trump and would love to see him kicked out of office, but
this Russia-gate conspiracy theory so far has no legs and this author is a posture kid for
this nonsense.
The author repeatedly returns to his talking points when challenged for evidence to
support his assertions. This is how ALL INTERVIEWS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. And the claim that
the interviewer had to read the whole book to rightly ask for evidence to support assertions
is utterly ridiculous.
This is a very biased interview. Mueller will tell the last word on Russia meddling Trump
campaign. But you can not question the content of a book you had not read in advance as this
young man does. I have followed the issue from the beginning in CNN and other media and I
have read the book Collusion, which is worth reading, very informative about. So this debate
lead me think this "journalist" may be paid by FSB/Putin.
I would say if you are going to critique the Christian idea of God it's essential you read
the bible if you are going to do it in any meaningful way . I take it you also have not read
the book . This is like debate climate denailists, it's the same tatic , they take some data
and misrepresent it to prove an ideological point . What I don't understand is why . And that
goes to my first point , why even bother debate it at all ? You say he offered no proof , but
he was just defending matte attachs , which if you look into it, are not that credible either
. If he thought he was going to debunk all the claims made in the book, he should of read it,
as he just looks stupid . But if you have not read it either, it's easy to agree with him, as
it's not a genuine debate .
Another Libtard bites the dust, grand claims of collusion without the necessary proof.
Going all the way back the 80' and 90' to justify hearsay. This libtard should be put in jail
for defamation and slander for not have enough proof for those claims.
Luke's book is already discounted, being peddled for barely half of its list price. The
man is a fraud with an anti-Putin vendetta he's trying to settle.
His entire argument is a gish gallop fallacy......... They're throwing dozens of
accusations at Trump, all of them individually weak arguments. If thier were actual fire,
they wouldn't need all of the smoke & mirrors.
It seems (opinion = fact ) in the UK , just walk around and ask ordinary Russians what
they think . The tactical guilt trip as a defensive tool , when you can't answer question .
This is another propagandist colluding with we're not sure who? , believe me anyway , how
dare you not believe me .
Wow!!! That's the best news interview I saw in ages... calmly, respectfully but surely
exposing that joke of a journalist for what he is: a fraud. Tnx Aaron!!! Keep on
truckin'...
Russia seem to have gotten almost nothing out of this Presidency. If there was something
transactional going on then Russian intelligence if far more incompetent than people are
being led to believe.
His answer to the very first Question explains everything, is the collusion ? we have to
go way back to 1987. (I thought this was during the campaign) (IGNORE THE NOISE IN THE MEDIA)
if you look at it, clinton payed many millions from KGB officers to get info on trump during
the campaign.
What a complete fraud this guy is. This is the book version of the "Steele Dossier", just
a bunch of crap telling people what they want to hear to make a quick buck. Bottom
feeders.
Why are we listening? Why did you interview an englishman of questionable character and
background about a case that is in investigation and has not found a single connection. This
book foremost is for profit and attention for the writer's benefit. Can he produce a single
documents to back his statements? My guess is no. Everything he says is hearsay and fiction.
The very first question asked is redirected... always when a question is redirected you can
bet it's all garbage. He's just another babbling backward British pompous bozo looking to
under mind and influence US citizens of our elected president. Brits by nature are globalist.
The small island has for century plagued the world with globalist ideals of using people all
over the world to enrich themselves. NEVER believe a Brit unless they are speaking ills of
their own country which basically has 2 classes, rich and poor.
Great work Aaron. Its great to see an interview that challenges the guest to rationally
explain the basis of proof for this nonsense red herring issue. Harding could not do it
without clear suppositions and assumptions - no proof. The Guardian - my how its prestige has
fallen.....and that guy wrote the book on the collusion and could not justify his case. That
is why his feed cut out - frustration he does not encounter thru corporate media
softball.
It is far too early to write off the investigation into Russian activities in the 2016
election or dismiss how long Russian operatives will cultivate a subject (POTUS Trump). They
often do not know how or where the people they cultivate will eventually end up, but they do
know that they have a hook in them, for future use. It's how they've done business for
decades.
Good job nailing him, however, " Putin is not a nice person" - what kind of BS is that?
Not a nice person, comparing to whom? The Russians seem to like him just fine and that's the
only thing that matters.
really i cringe listening to that guy - that's how that whole bullshit story implodes when
not all parties follow some scripts. thanks aaron - well done. merry xmas @ all.
Luke Harding talks a lot of Nonsense and which kind of secret meetings? What the Hell? He
just making Money with his Book and the truth doesn´t interst him
whatsover!
HARDING has no SHAME... the fact that he can blather this moronic nonsense without
laughing is mind blowing. Aaron just wants to laugh out loud so many times... Harding loves
to offer salacious antidotes regarding how evil Putin is, however there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO
EVIDENCE!
**IF THIS IS AN ACT OF WAR WE MUST HAVE EVIDENCE!** DID HARDING - "the reporter"
(used loosely) contact the DNC in order to find out whether they allowed the FBI to inspect
or examine the servers. This is PURE PROPAGANDA... Trump's phone calls have been monitored
according to retired NSA whistle blowers since 2005. If there was any conversation it would
have been leaked there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever of collusion. The FBI has no
evidence and STEELE has testified in court that other than Carter Page's trip to Moscow the
Dossier is ENTIRELY UNVERIFIED. When the entire thing is shown to have been a hoax will this
idiot retract his drivel. PREET BAHARA -Hillary donor - is the US atty who allowed the
Russian Lawyer into the country.
"... Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and ''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!! ..."
"... I don't think that guy knows what the word "evidence" means. ..."
"... You know what's hilarious? This guy didn't even do the basic research required to know the kind of interview he was getting into. ..."
"... Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. ..."
"... This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he has. ..."
"... I bet this clown sees Russian agents under his bed at night. ..."
"... This guy is better off appearing on Rachel Maddow show. he would get 0 push back from her ..."
"... Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate ..."
"... How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any attention?? ..."
"... the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda ..."
"... Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this "storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with stories like his. ..."
This moronic Brit wrote an entire book? Beginning with a visit to trump tower by a soviet
era diplomat who made a factual statement about how lovely Trump Tower is? It is a beautiful
tower, and had I seen the Donald on the streets of NYC, I would have said the same thing.
After a year of no implication.of collusion, we are left with delusion collusion. If the
moron wants to make a great case, how about researching the names of tenants of projects to
which Trump sold the right to his name? Or the Odessan taxi drivers who sometimes drove past
Trump Tower? After 7 minutes, I wondered how the interviewer had any patience for the moron,
except to get his worthless and lazy slime argument into the record. Click. The interviewer
had patience.
Another guy who, when asked for evidence to back up his assertions, answers with a
non-specific hand-wave :'( Nice interview, Aaron - you asked him questions he didn't like,
but you did it politely.
Luke, on the other hand, comes across as rude and petty... not a
great way to present a viewpoint. BTW, I think it's great that TheRealNews interviews people
with various opinions, and isn't afraid to ask them "hard" questions.
Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every
Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and
''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!!
Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North
America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so
diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and
speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. e.g. Green Party Jill Stein's guilt for
being at the same table that Putin sat at for mere minutes long enough to be included in a
photo, now smeared by the press as a Russian asset. I never saw Aaron raise his hands and ape
and gesticulate for added performance. Ultimately, when no evidence was ever presented (as
there is none to be found), this hilariously unfunny supposed-journalist, moreover fiction
author, invented the new term collusion-rejectionist, and promptly grabbed his mouse to click
disconnect and terminate his utter embarassment so expertly elucidated in this interview.
Thank You, Happy Holidays and best of luck in 2018 Aaron!
Bullcrap! Hillary Clinton and her Cronies, secured Trumps win, by how they cheated Bernie
during the 2016 Primary! Trump did not need Russia's, whatever you think they did, Hillary
secured the win for Trump because of her DIRTY POLITICS, against the Democratic Base! Hillary
and her thugs keep this up, they will secure the Republican Control in Washington, and quite
honestly, its what they want! Because I firmly believe that the Clinton's and all whom
support them ARE undercover Republicans, out to, and HAVE, destroyed the Democratic
Party!
This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the
worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of
tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could
convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he
has.
This man is quite hilarious in that even if Putin did hack the election all this
storyteller relates is predicated on the fact that, WE THE PEOPLE are entirely idiotic in in
the US. 'Tis quite condescending @TheRealNews
LUKE= So I think there is proof from my point of view but I don't have any. Only a feeling
and theories that can't be proven. No Evidence but Russia is bad. All oligarchs and
billionaires work with each other to make more money. Of course Putin and Trump had meetings.
So does Jeff Besos and the CIA.
Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good
speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is
flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with
this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate
One question: What kind of nation is modern day Russia? TOTALLY separate question: Did
they conduct some insidious assault on American elections (as though corporations don't do
this already)? These are totally unrelated issues. The human rights situation in Russia may
be- and is- awful. But we can imagine an extremely murderous nation internally that doesn't
happen to be much of a threat externally
Sez Corporatist Hack: "...The Russian media were portraying Hillary as some sort of
warmonger madwoman." Hello: That's EXACTLY what she is. She said one of her first acts as
President would be to declare a no-fly zone in Syria, which Gen. Dunford, testifying before
Congress, said would require going to war with Russia.
But Clinton is a front for the neocon
wing of the MIC, and they have been lusting for a new "Cold" War on the obvious grounds that
it would increase the already appalling amount of US and world resources they suck up. The
war corporations are so driven for profit that a little thing like the possibility of WWIII
is of no concern to them. So they tell themselves the story that the Russians would back down
and go home; the US would then be able to overthrow Assad so the oil companies could get
their damned pipeline across southern Syria; and the Russians, angry at the loss of face,
would ramp up their defense spending, which of course would require the US to ramp up theirs
even more.
Neat plan for never-ending profits, brought to you by Hillary Clinton and the
Warmongers. The problem is that Russia does not fear the US, and knows that it has the raw
power to win a conflict in Syria if it wants to respond that strongly (look up "Zircon"
hyper-sonic missile, which they have thousands of and against which US aircraft carriers have
no defense). And Russia, being legally invited by the legally-elected President of Syria, and
knowing the US to be acting illegally, might just decide to respond if the US attacks its
planes.
And if they send a carrier to the bottom of the Gulf to stop American fighters from
interfering with their legal activities in Syria, then President Clinton would have been
faced with a choice: Go nuclear or go home. Which do you think she would have done? It's a
damn good thing Trump won, detestable as he is. We are not at war with Russia, and that at
least is ahead of where we very likely would have been if the Shill had slimed her way into
power.
Sez Corporatist Hack: "I'm a story teller." No doubt about it, because he's told a bunch
of stories on this video. The Guardian is worthless corporatist trash, and Luke Harding is a
lying propagandist. I wonder who else KOFF*CIA*AHEM is paying his salary?
How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent
opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any
attention??
Aaron batting out the park these regular talking points so easily, It looked like Harding
has never had pushback on this. Twas interesting seeing him on the backfoot.
the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda....what an ass. thanks aaron, for keeping his feet to the fire and not letting him get away with lying. very
satisfying to see these a holes not get away with it for once.
Everything this guy sites happens all the time with many countries involved. So the
question is, why isolate one country? This another case of creating a narrative, and then
looking for non existent facts to back up said narrative. Sounds zealous. I cannot finish
watching this. Good job Aaron.
Tough interview, while he has a point the book should have been read thoroughly, it was a
shame he used that as a point to avoid answering the hard question, "where is the proof?". It
was interesting to hear about "Trump's ties to Russia", I think it was a shame the author
felt it was acceptable to defer to his mistrust (warranted) and bad feelings towards
Putin/Russian power structure in order to seemingly (from my point of view) justify the
position.
This interview goes to show how difficult REAL journalism is, and how REAL
scholarship is very valuable. While the author has a lot of interesting points, on this
issue, I only see this probe/issue as a political wedge used to disenfranchise the presiding
elected president, and the best thing about this whole process is a clear illustration about
how bankrupt and politically corrupt DC is.
The confidence game DC is pushing needs to be
brought down a few levels, and some power needs to go back to the people. We all have our own
part to play, and being a victim, I feel is a waste of time, except as a means of holding
people accountable.
smoke and mirrors. The evidence is so over-whelming that if anything was going
to be prosecuted the trial would already be completed.
This is getting a lot more complicated than it needs to be. The buzzphrase that most
Americans respond to (like Pavlov's dogs) is "Russia meddled in our election!" U.S. elections
have always been "meddled" with. It's enough to say Trump, Kushner & their ilk made a lot
of lucrative financial deals with Russia that turn out to be 1) conflicts of interest for ANY
elected official and 2) abuse of (presidential) power. Isn't that enough?
I know that this person is trying to sell a book, but I see the investigation wrapping up.
It would be pretty hard to carry on for another year. After all, Mueller has said it has
completed all the WH interviews - and the ones at the top of an investigation are always the
last ones questioned. Furthermore, in the first three week of November alone, 4,289 sealed
cases have appeared in federal dockets throughout the nation - including the territories.
There are probably more now. No one knows how many are Muellers, but the 4 unsealed cases are
part of the initial group of filings. My prediction - nothing on Trump and Hillary goes to
prison finally.
Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling
cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this
"storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with
stories like his.
Seriously, RNN? Why do you give this puppets book play. Good for you Erin for questioning
him. He's on the wrong side of this. There are so many connections among Obama FBI, DOJ,
State Dept, Clinton and DNC to Fusion GPS that you're have to be a complete moron not to want
to investigate THAT collusion to swing and election. They ere spying on trump and associates
all last year. If there was collusion the leaky DC swamp would have spilled the beans.With
regard to this collusion with Russia, Trump seems pretty clean. The NSA should know exactly
who hacked the DNC servers the collect every oversees packet transfer. Given they have not
come forward with that evidence I am more inclined to believe it was a leak, especially given
Former NSA cryptographer and IC pro Bill Binney pretty much proved it was a leak when he
showed the transfer rates were only achievable at a local port. Not over the Internet.
Impossible! Trump is an international businessman, some as Clinton's who have just as much
shady history with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Follow the money there is a flow of money
from Russian banks and players to the Clinton Foundation while she was SoS.
So sad you cannot read the book and you cannot listen and dismiss a really serious threat
to our elections. You did not even know what happened in Estonia. You demonstrate a real lack
of willingness to explore the truth with an open mind.
That was great! The emoticon proof! Hahaha! His tenacity was quasi-religious, especially
in the wrap-up and boils down to "There is evidence of collusion, even though I cannot point
to any evidence."
1987 all the way back when it was called the Soviet Union and was communist country. I am
an Independent, but get a charge out of all the lying and BS going on in the USA and the 2
parties and their zombie followers. Empires going down and the 2 parties are just puppets for
the Military Industrial Congressional Complex/Deep State. Big war coming and need lots of
unemployeed young draftees.
Good job, Aaron! What does the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko have to do with Donald
Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election from the hideous witch?
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017
While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington
into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in
U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
By Dennis J Bernstein
In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert
Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump
transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure
Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery
referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United
Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took
the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal
to block the resolution).
I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes
on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .
Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before
coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.
Richard Silverstein:
The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council
just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements.
Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going
directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to
Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While
they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with
various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.
One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the
foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the
foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted
to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.
In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign
policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because
that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on
the resolution and it passed 14-0.
But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the
Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to
derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and
disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.
This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign
policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on
behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until
now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign
policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for
that.
This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our
foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption
of US foreign policy by people like this.
Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would
learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's
investigation.
Silverstein:
That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who
have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump
administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if
it is not mentioned explicitly.
Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump
administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to
power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to
Israel.
Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major
newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and
because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence
on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three
media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may
be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel
in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.
Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the
Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have
read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.
Silverstein:
Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a
vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets
like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after
the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It
goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you
in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do
is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.
Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has
talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone
with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a
foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be
problematic?
Silverstein:
It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu
used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship
with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not
just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace
negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all
orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support
settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.
We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for
Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel
lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people
are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no
business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.
My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even
though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the
process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and
company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the
interests of the Palestinians.
Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the
West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears
to be part of an ethnic cleansing.
Silverstein:
The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since
Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to
withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered
the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until
now.
The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting
settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No
member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these
kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand
the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself.
But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and
acceptable as a mediator.
When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it,
with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of
Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My
prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the
Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions
there.
Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli
government to try to intercede at the United Nations.
Silverstein:
I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we
haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe
that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails
of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking
gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what
will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the
prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.
Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to
move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that
regard and what are the implications?
Silverstein:
Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US
foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the
European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the
United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will
veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will
pass easily.
The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the
world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to
explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply
going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among
Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be
many more.
As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was
what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN
resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump
was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go
that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.
By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is
a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here
and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.
As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount
of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:
1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras
I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the
aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is
eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this
impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a
progressive in direction.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more
illuminating.
That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight
hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.
While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated,
probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.
In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think
he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew
calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case
against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel
collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will
awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am
It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention
from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind
the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.
The leaked emails showed the corruption
plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a
highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate
the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli
secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to
buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm
The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not
defined as an enemy.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm
The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has
been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the
Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and
that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that
they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his
family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the
building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's
blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem
the capital of Israel.
I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they
should.
Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am
@Annie
"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."
You and me both .
From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act
would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many
people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well
The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact
each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after
could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries
reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their
cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.
Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out
to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything
wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As
such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they
tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case
is correct.
People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case
are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.
Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of
the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would
be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to
influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation
tries to prove hopelessly
"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and
therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with
Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing
their best to provoke Russia into one.
Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am
familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and
Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since
Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes
to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one
has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype
seems to apply it selectively.
mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer
hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).
There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has
been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.
But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not
to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's
tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there
there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.
Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban
(Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these
politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.
alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm
So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What
of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are
orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator
bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.
Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce
false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short
stayovers for them at some CIA black site?
So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem
witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and
Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's
flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.
Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm
He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way
again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.
JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm
This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans
think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.
1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a
defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor
shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.
2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.
3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are
under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.
4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of
equal human rights for all.
Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this
power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more
power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn
"Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into
"Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.
War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness
to victimize millions of people. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign
contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid
sale of souls.
And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or
false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to
family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has
described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming
evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and
analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists. "Let's talk about Russian influence" http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters
are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that,
and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as
simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters
as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these
types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm
There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in
characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do
wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do
right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial
writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of
course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm
A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist
Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure
that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism
against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of
zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in
the US.
backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm
A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it
up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his
Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.
Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards
right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.
Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would
they?
Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want
that, would they?
Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the
Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same
mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the
Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus,
Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry,
this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the
MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle
East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am
It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this
story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings.
Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally
they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.
Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am
I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give
hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe
Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that
he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand,
one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli
PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.
He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN
delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of
Crimea.
Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to
get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but
the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding
the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.
This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which,
due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the
close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state
visits there in the last year and a half.
Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That
Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I
suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at
having to abstain.
Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am
The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to
make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky
over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad
nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.
He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am
"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the
US"
We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been
essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g. "Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital
This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly
controlled by the Israelis.
alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am
"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "
Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since
the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having
spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.
"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US
veto."
Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to
get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.
For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're
going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House
we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon
sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.
Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am
Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves
their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will
simply ignore the Israeli connection.
Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as
evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone
call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of
this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.
Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am
I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would
never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers
money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and
barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.
What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid
regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which
the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go
back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to
Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state
with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot
dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous
pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine
control of its borders.
With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British
resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a
Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of
what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.
Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of
Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of
Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of
Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for
perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before
the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with
the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to
both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm
FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy
(against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End
of story.
$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia,
public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that
he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its
(Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read
my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a
"moron" for some seeming contradiction.
I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy.
If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria
and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving
their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing
brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote,
arguably, perpetual war.
Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US
politics. Just sayin'.
This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie
wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long
suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW
Good site, BTW.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm
I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened
quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal
red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.
In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several
things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be
excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his
views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He
really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something
or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .
P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than
reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel
lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible
relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was
manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's
influence.
The formal component of the Israel lobby consists of organized lobby groups , political action committees
(PACs), think tanks and
media watchdog
groups . The Center for Responsive
Politics , which tracks all lobbies and PACs, describes the 'background' of those
'Pro-Israel' as, "A nationwide network of local political action committees, generally named
after the region their donors come from, supplies much of the pro-Israel money in US politics . Additional funds
also come from individuals who bundle contributions to candidates favored by the
PACs. The donors' unified goal is to build stronger US-Israel relations and to support
Israel in its negotiations and armed conflicts with its Arab neighbors." [24]
According to Mitchell Bard, there are, three key formal lobbying groups:
A summary of pro-Israel campaign donations for the period of 1990–2008 collected by
Center
for Responsive Politics indicates current totals and a general increase in proportional
donations to the US
Republican party since 1996. [46]
The Center for Responsive Politics' 1990–2006 data shows that "pro-Israel interests have
contributed $56.8 million in individual, group and soft money donations to federal candidates
and party committees since 1990." [47]
In contrast, Arab-Americans and Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than $800,000
during the same (1990–2006) period. [48]
In 2006, 60% of the Democratic Party 's
fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party's fundraising came from Jewish-funded
PACs. According to a Washington Post estimate, Democratic presidential candidates depend on
Jewish sources for as much as 60% of money raised from private sources. [49]
... ... ...
AIPAC does not give donations directly to candidates, but those who donate to AIPAC are
often important political contributors in their own right. In addition, AIPAC helps connect
donors with candidates, especially to the network of pro-Israel political action committees.
AIPAC president Howard Friedman says "AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress.
These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities
of Israel's predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to
author a 'position paper' on their views of the US-Israel relationship – so it's clear
where they stand on the subject."[43]
.... ... ...
Mearsheimer and Walt state that "pro-Israel figures have established a commanding presence
at the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy
Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign
Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). These think
tanks are all decidedly pro-Israel and include few, if any, critics of US support for the
Jewish state."[50]
"... Scared and panicking Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities: as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification and/or protection. ..."
Obama and Clinton thought they had the election in the bag. They broke surveillance laws thinking that Clinton would be in
the Whitehouse to cover it anyway. Imagine their shock on election day when they realized how many felonies would be exposed when
Trump took over.........cover-up.
Look at her face at 2:06 ... Scared and panicking
Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a
legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities:
as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification
and/or protection.
Here is a list of officials in the US Government who hold Dual Citizenship, as well as just how much influence Israel had and still have on our government..
1. Attorney General - Michael Mukasey
2. Head of Homeland Security - Michael Chertoff
3. Chairman Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Richard Perle
4. Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) - Paul Wolfowitz
5. Under Secretary of Defense - Douglas Feith
6. National Security Council Advisor - Elliott Abrams
7. Vice President #$%$ Cheney's Chief of Staff (Former) - "Scooter" Libby
8. White House Deputy Chief of Staff - Joshua Bolten
9. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs - Marc Grossman
10. Director of Policy Planning at the State Department - Richard Haass
11. U.S. Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position) - Robert Zoellick
12. Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - James Schlesinger
13. UN Representative (Former) - John Bolton
14. Under Secretary for Arms Control - David Wurmser
15. Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Eliot Cohen
16. Senior Advisor to the President - Steve Goldsmith
17. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary - Christopher Gersten
18. Assistant Secretary of State - Lincoln Bloomfield
19. Deputy Assistant to the President - Jay Lefkowitz
20. White House Political Director - Ken Melman
21. National Security Study Group - Edward Luttwak
22. Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Kenneth Adelman
23. Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) - Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
24. National Security Council Advisor - Robert Satloff
25. President Export-Import Bank U.S. - Mel Sembler
26. Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families - Christopher Gersten
27. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs - Mark Weinberger
28. White House Speechwriter - David Frum
29. White House Spokesman (Former) - Ari Fleischer
30. Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Henry Kissinger
31. Deputy Secretary of Commerce - Samuel Bodman
32. Under Secretary of State for Management - Bonnie Cohen
33. Director of Foreign Service Institute - Ruth Davis
Senate:
Senator Dianne Feinstein (California)
Senator Barbara Boxer (California)
Senator Benjamin Cardin (Maryland)
Senator Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
Senator Al Franken (Minnesota)
Senator Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)
Senator Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey)
Senator Joe Lieberman (Connecticut) (Independent)
Senator Carl Levin (Michigan)
Senator Bernard Sanders (Vermont) (Independent)
Senator Charles Schumer (New York)
Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon)
House of Representatives:
Representative Howard Berman (California)
Representative Susan Davis (California)
Representative Bob Filner (California)
Representative Jane Harman (California)
Representative Adam Schiff (California)
Representative Henry Waxman (California)
Representative Brad Sherman (California)
Representative Gary Ackerman (New York)
Representative John H. Adler (New Jersey)
Representative Shelley Berkley (Nevada)
Representative Steve Cohen (Tennessee)
Representative Eliot Engel (New York)
Representative Barney Frank (Massachusetts)
Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona)
Representative Alan Grayson (Florida)
Representative Paul Hodes (New Hampshire)
Representative Steve Israel (New York)
Representative Steve Kagen (Wisconsin)
Representative Ronald Klein (Florida)
Representative Sander Levin (Michigan)
Representative Nita Lowey (New York)
Representative Jerry Nadler (New York)
Representative Jared Polis (Colorado)
Representative Steve Rothman (New Jersey)
Representative Jan Schakowsky (Illinois)
Representative Allyson Schwartz (Pennsylvania)
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)
Representative Anthony Weiner (New York)
Representative John Yarmuth (Kentucky)
Last and not the least influential Zionist lobby in America is the Christian Zionists Movement backed by American senators and politicians, bragging a million plus members
America is the only country in the world that has this many citizens of another country in its congress???
And 4 billions every year to israel ?? Why ??
No wonder israel AIPAC is running a muck
It would surely be in the US interest if fewer Jews felt the need to put the interests of Israel before those of their own
country, the USA. Moreover, if Israel were truly independent and secure, or as secure as is possible for any small country
to be, would that not encourage America's Israel Firsters to go and live in Israel, thus loosening the grip that the Israeli
lobby has on the US Government
Afraid not.
First and foremost Israel has to have enough Jews in the US to talk it up to politicians as a voting block for them.
Another First is that Israel is not self supporting and never will be –they don't the land water or resources to be self sufficient
-- hence the stealing of Palestine and the constant money grubbing from other states.
Second..They also have to have Jews here to ensure the politicians keep giving Israel billions of our tax money every year.
And Israel really has to have the Uber Jews in the US stay here to fund and sway both parties and elections, threaten politicians,
form their lobby and keep an eye on their Israel voting.
Also important, Israel must have all the 100s of US Jewish agencies, clubs, org and etc to propagandize and to use Congress
to get special grants and favors for hundreds of Jewish charities.
Jews also make 100 phone calls for Israel and Jewish programs to their congresspeople for every one call a non Jew makes to
their rep on some issue.
Another point, Israel must have enough Jews in the US to get a lot of them educated -- the average IQ of Jews in Israel is 85,
Jews have only succeeded and excelled when exposed to non Jewish education.
If there were no Jews in the US it is unlikely US tech giants and others would set up plants in Israel when they could find
cheaper and just as skilled and more educated workers in Asia and elsewhere or that Israel would get special trade favors from
the US.
If there were no Jews in the US Israel wouldn't be able to sell a billion dollars worth of bonds to US unions and pension funds
every year.
If there were no Jews in the US, Jews couldn't send 2 billion of money made in the US to Israel every year -- that money would
have been in non Jewish pockets and stayed and circulated in the US economy.
If there were no Jews in the US then the 90% of Dept of Homeland Security funds might go to improving school security and preventing
school shootings in the US instead of to Jewish temples and office buildings for Jewish security.
If there were no Jews in the US then they couldn't clog up American courts to sue every other country and corporation in the
world for more money for the Jews.
If there were no Jews in the US our constitutional free speech rights wouldn't be under assault by the uber Jews.
If there were no Jews in the US congress wouldn't even think of trying to criminalize citizens rights to boycott whoever he
wishes.
If there were no Jews there wouldn't be Jews who go into small towns around the country looking for some town or county that
opens their business meetings with a Christian prayer so they can sue them under separation of church and state because it
hurts their feeling and saying Jesus makes them uncomfortable- -yea they did that in my state and took it all the way to the
supreme court –and lost thankfully.
Last but not least if there were no Jews in the US Israel probably would never have existed or would have failed shortly after
it started because there would have been no diaspora Jews to lobby the countries they lived in to help Israel .
I getting tired but will list more sometime
Meanwhile -- If you go to the presidential libraries starting with Truman, in all their papers and discussions on Israel you will
see the phase .. "domestic political considerations " ..over and over and over by every president meaning the pressure
and money that the tribe exerts for or against a politician according to their Israel policy.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews
in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded
cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the
U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because
of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is
a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that
studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates
casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists.
It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation
of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous
war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate
a catastrophic war with Iran.
To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted
the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions
of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish
power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God
and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.
There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends.
The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The
Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group
in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu
receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the
U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups
and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora
of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support
flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention
that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel
is a liability to the United States and always has been.
And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly
towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with
Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American
Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part
to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace
that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and
validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community
apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.
That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government
to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action.
Several high level Jewish officials, including
Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had
questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security
clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman
Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and
Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer"
or
guardian in the U.S. Senate.
A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism
that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates,
to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers
and reputations.
Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an
undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with
the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of
the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe.
The four-part documentary
released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly
filmed meetings and discussions.
The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within
the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported
by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone
as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly
in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one
point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what
Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.
The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government
officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office
or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign
Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful
regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom.
When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who
reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign
and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who
might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal"
to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of
a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of
Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish
groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked
with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific
charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.
On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation
had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous
hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications
to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove
that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias"
prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and
had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She
said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any
Jewish person involved in public life."
The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that
may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a
second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British
intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which
is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish
organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,
Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version
will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented
"With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America
works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign
interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in
America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that
debate."
Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back
in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage
Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence
Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel,
he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so.
The charges against the two men were, unfortunately,
eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose
classified information."
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt
Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out
in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical
of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a
cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral
cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to
the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living
like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid
of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.
But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were
to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?
My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded
after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're
now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.
Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence
of its patron, Ron!
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are
regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming
that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes
in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed
so far.
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).
That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all
that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked
disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She
used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger.
I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.
I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and
without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization",
"development", blah-blah.
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I
anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective
rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda
apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with
sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability
to arrest its fall.
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation
-- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been
holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).
Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader
should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only
showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush
Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal
of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement
of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less
carried out in the open.
London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European
leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the
Muslim world, only more so.
The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is
removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier.
Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.
All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and
all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't
know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's
'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.
Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so
that they can further their specious arguments.
"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously
as the British did"
Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings
in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government,
did.
The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government
"apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British
media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response
was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of
these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.
But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are
an anti-Semite and a hater.
The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal
and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian
influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at
every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation
of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the
high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.
And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.
Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran
:
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's
compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the
bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle
East war?
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the
point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical
parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the
Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury
and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought
to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is
only there to harass little people like you and me.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch
with sorrow as this great nation crumbles
We are long past that point.
I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core
from its inception.
For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the
ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their
predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist"
are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.
Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.
The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon
which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.
*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show
even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in
the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans
will finally wake up.
"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy
of any Jewish person involved in public life."
I have news for that twister of words.
In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That
is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.
In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than
the rest of us.
It's called accountability.
BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft
of nuclear triggers from the US?
"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin
Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S.
in the 80s and 90s."
When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system
in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief
of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank
death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times
and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces
helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when
some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like
Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference.
We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last
week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.
Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.
Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately
rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.
Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"
(Sigh)
History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive
Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.
At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on
the table" & ready for a war with Iran.
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two
side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.
WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture
is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing
heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than
Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British
Isles natives were not WASPs.
WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs.
You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'
By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had
a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish.
It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.
The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people
who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.
Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the
pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group
of Semites.
And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom
and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also
squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy
WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.
The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby,
but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence
of Western man.
It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to
sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed,
you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused
of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the
Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.
Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US
election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.
Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony
by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components
of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting
plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection,
could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the
White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments
is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is
quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the
American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough
of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent
against war either .)
"... "We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists, even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress." ..."
"... She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known, but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10 million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times. ..."
"... Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she said. ..."
"... "In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting." ..."
This power hungry woman are just plain vanilla incompetent: "The Russian campaign was
leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and a loss of
faith in democracy, she said."
Democrats had urged her to be silent after
her defeat to Trump but she was not going to go away, said Clinton. She vowed to play her part
in an attempt to win back Democratic seats in the forthcoming midterm elections. She admitted
she "just collapsed with real grief and disappointment" after her election defeat.
Clinton, who is touring the country to promote What Happened – her memoir reflecting
on the election defeat, told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "Looking at the Brexit vote now, it was a
precursor to some extent of what happened to us in the United States."
She decried the amount of fabricated information voters were given: "You know, the big lie
is a very potent tool and we've somewhat kept it at bay in western democracies, partly because
of the freedom of the press. There has to be some basic level of fact and evidence in all parts
of our society."
She urged Britain to be cautious about striking a trade deal with Trump, saying he did not
believe in free trade.
In other comments during the Cheltenham literary festival, she accused the Kremlin of waging
an information war throughout the 2016 US election process. The tactics "were a clear and
present danger to western democracy and it is right out of the Putin playbook", she said.
"We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted
attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division
in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists,
even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress."
She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known,
but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from
Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10
million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times.
Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was
a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such
cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still
playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she
said.
"In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are
in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism
and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting."
The Russian campaign was leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary
and Poland, and a loss of faith in democracy, she said.
Anybody who subscript of NYT, or WaPo after this fiasco is simply paying money for state
propaganda.
Notable quotes:
"... Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. " ..."
"... Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. ..."
"... This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts -- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. ..."
"... The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. ..."
"... How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any." ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
"... If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact. ..."
"... This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome. ..."
"... In the end, Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it. The American public will get the report, which it deserves. ..."
"... But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us. ..."
"... Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions, it is no longer important, just political theater. ..."
"... The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished. ..."
"... The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40 years. ..."
"... Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows; the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying. ..."
"... So what ? Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics: Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London ..."
"... Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff. ..."
"... If all we hear are endless allusions to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic level of rationality after this fiasco? ..."
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and
independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support
a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.
Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference
last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be
supported by our committee. "
Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret
information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his
co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together
Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to
produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. In other words, the
intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by
pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that's
been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:
Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews,
comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed
more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively
spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry,
going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both
classified and unclassified material.
It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified
assumptions, then what's the point? Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see
whether Burr and Warner are justified in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy. From the
Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at
the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US
democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference
for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see,
the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors'
lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and
preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts
-- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters
of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and
psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be
taken seriously.
Here's more from the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and
because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't
think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence
report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The
report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd
realize that it's nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA's authors had
avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the
former seriously impacts the report's credibility.
To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who
contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:
"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said
Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent
putting the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and,
in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have
found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr
added that the committee's review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and
they've interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with
putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The
Nation)
That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews,
comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without
producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The
Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the
investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was
involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members
of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on
the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor,
Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The
committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now,
I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."
Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages"
there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news?
Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all,
they've hyped every other part of this story?
Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so
they decided to scrub the story altogether?
But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of
Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the
interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come
up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no
proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.
So here's a question for critical minded readers:
If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016
elections, then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't
really make sense, does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't
the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man
innocent until proven guilty or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?
Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking
matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. That's why
they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened.
Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan
rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the
hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to
his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by
Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax
to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC
emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the
Committee or asked to testify via Skype?
Don't bet on it.
What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly
admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor
has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a
credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.
Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has
produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a
foreign government. McGovern's work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not
hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?
How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose
excellent report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the
hacking theory, as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation
titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly
obliterates the central claims of the ICA.
Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at
the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence
(in the form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not
involved in the DNC email scandal.
Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and
credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that
has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?
Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or
evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.
So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really
conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a
witch hunt?
It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide
the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the
prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an
emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and
threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one
massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now
consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO)
devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It
is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory
of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American
people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.
Where is this going? At some point in the next few years there will be a 'damning' report
that will regurgitate what has already been endlessly publicised: VIP's meet each other (the
horror!), somehow DNC emails got published, Facebook sold ads to 'Russia-linked' users, and
Pokemon Go, whatever. That will be described in sinister terms and RT will be thrown in. How
dare RT not to have the same views as CNN?
But what then? Let's even say that Trump is removed – he is at this point so
emasculated that keeping him in the White House is the most stabilising thing the
establishment could do. Is Congress going to declare a war on Russia? Or more sanctions? Are
they going to ban RT? Break diplomatic relations? None of that makes sense because any of
those moves would be more costly than beneficial, some dramatically so. Therefore nothing
will happen.
All that will remain is permanent bitterness towards Russia, and vice-versa. And much
reduced ability to do what the West has done for 75 years: heavy interference and media
campaigns inside foreign countries to influence elections. If 'meddling' is so bad, the
biggest meddlers – by far – will be less able to meddle. So how is this hysteria
helping?
Sanity in public life is a precious thing. Once abandoned, all kinds of strange things
start happening. Yeah, Pokemon GO – Putin was personally naming the characters to 'sow
division'. It sounds like something Stalin would accuse his 'cosmopolitan' enemies of doing.
This is really embarrassing.
Incorrect parsing of reality. It was not about getting Trump but it was about making Trump
administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with having Gen. Flynn fired. This
mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with Russia than at the end of Obama
administration.
If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I
can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact.
I have been convinced of the ridiculousness of the Russian-hacking/collusion
narrative/scandal since it was created in 2016.
I, too, smelled a rat and figured that it was all BS right from the get go. So much so
that I haven't followed it a bit. In fact it's so ridiculous on its face, that I have not and
probably will not, waste time reading the article even though MW is a good guy, an
unimpeachable source, a true journalist, and a fine writer.
Bless you, Mr Whitney, for having the energy to document what is no doubt a pack of lies
from the usual suspects.
I stumbled on this yesterday, and it suggests, to no one's surprise, that it's always
deja vu all over again. You'd think our "high IQ" masters would show a little
originality once in a while, and that we, "Low IQ" as we are, would finally learn that it's
all BS from the get-go.
Note the date.:
THESE books all belong to that literature of Katzenjammer which now flourishes so
amazingly in the United States t hey all embody attempts to find out what is the matter
with the Republic. I wish I could add that one or another of them solves the problem, or at
least contributes something to its illumination , but that would be going somewhat
beyond the facts.
-H.L. Mencken, Autopsy (4 Reviews), , September 1927 , pp. 123-125 –
PDF
This makes me suspect that Mike Whitney is a censorious coward on the model of Razib
Khan (thankfully expelled from unz.com) or even worse Paul Craig Roberts (who prohibits
comments entirely).
While I agree with you about the latter two, and have written them off accordingly, along
with Mercer, who I suspect "edits" (really, "purges" ) her comments too, I highly doubt that
MW falls into the same categories as those mentioned. At least MW doesn't use the word,
"insouciant" 3 or 4 times in every article!
If I am wrong and this article is simply strangely unpopular please let me know and I
will apologize.
The article isn't so much unpopular as the subject is wearying. It's the same crud all
over again,obviously false, and I suspect virtually everyone knows it. It's utterly boring
and I give MW a lot of credit for having the persistence to even face the mindless mess, let
alone think and write about it. He really is to be admired for that.
I've always thought it was a distraction as usual from other much more more important
things but utu has a better take on it.
it was about making Trump administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with
having Gen. Flynn fired. This mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with
Russia than at the end of Obama administration. [ed note:And Flynn is gone too.]
I think that's a "Bingo!" and I also think you better formulate an apology and plan on
getting on yer knees to deliver it!
PS: I'm curious as to why you think this is of much interest at all. (Aside from utu's
take.)
We don't know who this author really is but, once again, what's interesting is that so
many people are still so scared of an investigation which is supposedly producing "no
evidence" (leaving aside Trump Junior's evidence, of course). If all this was a load of
nonsense, why make such a fuss about it? If there's nothing to this, an "effort to support a
theory", however "determined" will come up with nothing. The frantic attempts to kill off
Russiagate suggest that those who are making such attempts know, or believe, that there
actually is something to it which has not yet come to light. Probably something pretty dirty
by the sound of it. What if some part of the US intelligence services took part in the
manipulation of the election, either in collusion with the Russians or posing as Russians,
and Putin can prove it? That would certainly explain the plethora of retired intelligence
agents who are so assiduously defending a foreign government. If Putin really is innocent,
the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take its natural course.
Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is
an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the
publics perception of Russia.
Really? Only "now"?! I thought it was pretty much clear from the beginning.
This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were
hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome.
In the end,
Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about
so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it.
The American public will get the report, which it deserves.
Indeed, well said. But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The
headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be
hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the
Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless
pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us.
Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued
more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still
publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions,
it is no longer important, just political theater.
The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical
weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they
wanted. Mission accomplished.
Mike – good article. The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten
flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its
blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts
out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards
accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully
buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40
years.
If it can be gotten wrong, the Borg will get it wrong; it will be gotten wrong at the worst
possible time; it will move on to get it wrong again. These are three things that you can
absolutely count on.
Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows;
the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power
they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying.
So what ?
Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics:
Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing
Expectations', 1979, 1980, London
@Mike Whitney Russia collusion does lack credibility, but you're still doing us a great
service by following the twists and turns of this beheaded snake. The details are worth
reading about, even if there isn't much to argue about regarding the conclusion. So thanks
for that.
Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and
zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of
dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff.
"If Putin really is innocent, the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take
its natural course."
Innocent of what? What is it exactly that Russia supposedly did? Let me list a few
things that are still perfectly legal in our world (that would include US, I hope):
having an opinion, even if that opinion is not the same as NY Times/CNN/US State
Dept
expressing this opinion publicly, even spending money to spread that opinion
supporting the side in an election that you prefer – even in other countries
(everybody does this all the time, Obama flew to UK to campaign against Brexit)
publishing negative stuff about those you dislike (or who dislike you), e.g. their emails,
accounts, etc
spending money to spread your views – even on 'US-owned' platforms that are otherwise
operating all over the world, e.g. Facebook has 700 million active users, they cannot all be
in US
laughing or celebrating if what you preferred won (champagne for Trump)
meeting with foreigners from a country not in a state of war with you, or – God
forbid! – meeting with their ambassador.
None of the above is either unusual or illegal. It might not look good to some people, but
it is what international life has consisted for at least 200 years. If you call that
'meddling', you just might be too naive for the world as it is.
What is the 'natural course' for the investigation? If all we hear are endless allusions
to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This
is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart
enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic
level of rationality after this fiasco?
Putin named Pokemon GO characters after BLM victims to stir up racial hatreds in US. How
does one answer that? Where would you even start dealing with people who are capable of this
level of nonsense?
Why he calls its lunatic. It's pretty rations. Russia now represent an obstacle for global
neoliberal empire and being the weakest link in Russia-China alliance it is only logical to
attack it first
Notable quotes:
"... Russia-hating was an American upper-class phenomenon, cultivated in the offices, cocktail parties, clubs, and mansions of the deep state, as it emerged out of World War II. It needed a new enemy to thrive; it fastened on Russia (aka the Soviet Union) as the enemy. ..."
"... McCarthyism was an American lower-class phenomenon. It focused on the loyalty or disloyalty of the upper-class deep-staters. That wasn't the same thing as Russia-hating; Wall Street bankers, Boston lawyers, homosexuals, Jews, communists, were all the enemy. As the Senator from Wisconsin characterized it himself in 1952, "McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled." He implied – without a middle-class tie; certainly not an upper-class bow-tie. ..."
"... In covering the period from 1946 to 1975, Herken's research does repeat much of the history of the Cold War which has been told elsewhere. It starts on February 22, 1946, the date of the "Long Telegram", No. 511 -- Kennan's despatch from the US Embassy in Moscow to the State Department, setting out his strategy of so-called containment and much more besides. Read it in the declassified original . Most of the war-fighting and other war crimes which the telegram set in motion under Kennan's 1948 rubrics, "organized political warfare" and "preventive direct action", are reported in Herken's book; so too are Kennan's frequent funks, failures of conviction, reversals of judgment, and pleas for help. ..."
"... "Interestingly enough, the term "Russophobia" was first used by Fyodor Tyutchev (1803 -- 1873), famous Russian poet, diplomat and politician in reference to growing Western hostilities against Russia on the "eve" of the Crimean War (1854-56) between the Russian Empire and an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia. ..."
"... Historians elaborate that the so-called "Russophobia campaign" actually started as early as the 1820s -- instigated by Britain -- following Russia's glorious victory over Napoleonic France in 1812-13. ..."
"... "British hostility towards Russia had recurred periodically ever since the late eighteenth century. In had become increasingly apparent, albeit in a gradual and evolutionary fashion, in the years after Waterloo Fear of Russia's aims in Europe and Asia surfaced as early as 1817," American historian Edward M. Spiers wrote in his book "Radical General: Sir George de Lacy Evans, 1787-1870." ..."
Joseph
Alsop (lead image, centre) and George Kennan (right) started the kind of Russia-hating in
Washington which, today, President Vladimir Putin, like the businessmen around him, think of as
a novelty that cannot last for long.
Alsop was a fake news fabricator, and such a narcissist as to give the bow-ties he wore a
bad name. Kennan was a psychopath who alternated bouts of aggression to prove himself with
bouts of depression over his cowardice. For them, Russia was a suitable target. The Washington
Post was the newspaper which gave their lunacy public asylum. This, according to a fresh
history by a university professor from California, started in 1947, long before the arrival in
Washington of the anti-communist phobia known after the name of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Russia-hating was an American upper-class phenomenon, cultivated in the offices,
cocktail parties, clubs, and mansions of the deep state, as it emerged out of World War II. It
needed a new enemy to thrive; it fastened on Russia (aka the Soviet Union) as the
enemy.
McCarthyism was an American lower-class phenomenon. It focused on the loyalty or
disloyalty of the upper-class deep-staters. That wasn't the same thing as Russia-hating; Wall
Street bankers, Boston lawyers, homosexuals, Jews, communists, were all the enemy. As the
Senator from Wisconsin characterized it himself in 1952, "McCarthyism is Americanism with its
sleeves rolled." He implied – without a middle-class tie; certainly not an upper-class
bow-tie.
Russia was not an enemy which united the two American lunacies, for they hated
each other much more than they hated the Russians. The Soviet Politburo understood this better
then than the Kremlin does now.
Gregg Herken's The Georgetown
Set , is so named because it records the activities of Alsop, Kennan and several other
State Department, Central Intelligence Agency and White House officials who lived as neighbours
in the Georgetown district of the capital city, together with Katharine (Kay) and Philip
Graham, proprietor managers of the Washington Post. The district – once a chartered city
of Maryland and river port, which was absorbed into the federal District of Columbia in 1871 --
was expensive, relatively speaking then; more so now. The richest of the set, including Alsop,
had town houses in Georgetown, and rural retreats in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Connecticut.
They were a set because because, as Herken said succinctly to an interviewer , "they got
together every Sunday for supper and, basically, they ran the country from those meetings." As
the book elaborates, they thought they were running the world. With a longer time lapse in
which to view the evidence, they were also losing it.
Newspapers exposed in the book for collaborating in all the deceits, failures and war crimes
of the history have reacted by calling
Herken's effort a "provincial corner". The New Yorker opined that the Russia-hating
and Russia war-making which Herken retells are dead and gone. "The guests at the Sunday
soirées no doubt felt that they were in the cockpit of history. But the United States is
a democracy, not a Wasp Ascendancy There was once an atmosphere of willingness that made a
system of bribes and information exchanges seem, to the people involved, simply a way of
working together for a common cause in a climate of public opinion that, unfortunately,
required secrecy. No one got rich from the arrangement. People just lost track of what was
inside their bubble and what was outside, as people tend to do. Vietnam was the reality check.
'I've Seen the Best of It' was the title Alsop gave to his memoirs. Things hadn't been the same
since, he felt. He was right about that, and we should be thankful." In the New York media
business these days it's possible to publish a selfie of pulling your own leg.
The Washington Post has deflected the indictment against itself by describing Herken's work
as "a very strange book (A) a rehash of the history of the Cold War as experienced in certain
Washington circles and (B) an almost obsessive recapitulation of the life and journalism of
Joseph Alsop." Alsop is dismissed as unworthy of a history at all because he was "utterly
repellent: arrogant, patronizing, imperious, uninterested in anyone except himself."
That's the truth about Alsop. The truth about the Washington Post is buried in this line by
the Post's books editor about the hand that fed him: "it must be very hard for people who did
not live through the '50s and '60s to understand how obsessed the American people were with the
threat from Moscow." That line appeared in
print on November 7, 2014. It was already history, that's to say, a misjudgment. How
monumentally mistaken is obvious now.
In covering the period from 1946 to 1975, Herken's research does repeat much of the
history of the Cold War which has been told elsewhere. It starts on February 22, 1946, the date
of the "Long Telegram", No. 511 -- Kennan's despatch from the US Embassy in Moscow to the State
Department, setting out his strategy of so-called containment and much more besides. Read it in
the declassified original
. Most of the war-fighting and other war crimes which the telegram set in motion under Kennan's
1948 rubrics, "organized political warfare" and "preventive direct action", are reported in
Herken's book; so too are Kennan's frequent funks, failures of conviction, reversals of
judgment, and pleas for help.
The book ends on December 30, 1974, the date of Alsop's last column. Alsop concluded with
the line: "I have never known the American people to be really badly wrong, if only they were
correctly and fully informed."
Herken shows how self-deluded and professionally delusional
that was -- not because of Alsop's character but because of his sources. Herken documents that
they ran upwards from foot-soldiers (also lubricious sailors) to presidents and cabinet
secretaries. Herken doesn't think the same of Kennan, who gets to walk off stage, aged 101,
sounding more sceptical of overthrowing Saddam Hussein than he ever was in his prime and in
power to direct schemes of what we call state terrorism today.
Left to right: Kennan died in 2005, aged 101; Alsop died in 1989 aged 78; Frank Wisner
died in 1965 aged 56. The deeper Herken gets into the private papers, the more he refers to his
subjects by their diminutives and nicknames – Joe, Oppie, Beetle, Dickie, the Crocodile,
Wig, Jack, Wiz, Soozle, Vangie, et al.
What is fresh about the sources is that Herken has had access to the private notes, letters
and diaries of the Alsop family; the Kennan diaries and letters; and the private papers of
Frank Wisner, the first director of covert operations against Russia. Wisner went mad and
killed himself, as did Graham. There's no doubt about the suicide outcome of their madness.
In the case of the mad ex-Defence Secretary James Forrestal his fatal jump from the window
of the Navy hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, in May 1949 might have been a homicidal push.
Herken concludes that Forrestal's death was "the first senior-ranking American casualty of the
Cold War." Herken thinks of their madness as anomalies. The history shows they were
normalities.
Missing from this history is any reference to official documents, now declassified; press
reporting of the time; or interviews with veterans of the same events but on other sides
– Russian and Soviet; British; German; French; Polish; Vietnamese; Chinese. This isn't so
much a fatal flaw in Herken's (right) book as the reason why his history is repeating itself
today. Call this a variation on Karl's Marx's apothegm that history starts as tragedy and
repeats itself as farce. Herken's blindness to this is as revealing as the Washington Post's
madness, not yet as suicidal as its former proprietor's, today.
So mesmerized is Herken by the moneyed backgrounds of his subjects and sources, and by the
amount of black cash from the US Government they spent on operations, he forgets to report what
they did to fill their own pockets. The claim by the New Yorker that "no one got rich from the
arrangement" – Alsop's fake news fabrications – is false, but Herken touches only
in passing on how they made (or kept) their money. Alsop's column, for example, was sold to 200
newspapers, and at one time claimed a readership of 25 million. His family inheritance is
recorded, but not its annual revenue value. Alsop's payola included silk shirts from Alfred
Kohlberg, a textile importer from China who backed Chiang Kai-shek against Mao Tse-tung, as did
Alsop. Alsop's patrons included Convair (General Dynamics), the company building the US Air
Force Atlas missile for procurement of which Alsop reported fictions about Soviet missile
strength.
In the US power which Alsop, Kennan and Wisner believed without hesitation, Herken is not
less a believer. "Anything could be achieved", Herken quotes a New York Times reporter quoting
Wisner. When the US force multiple changed, however, and US allies or agents were outgunned,
outspent, outnumbered, or outwitted, they were unable to acknowledge miscalculation,
attributing defeat instead to the superior force or guile of their adversaries, especially the
Russians.
This is madness, and there is good reason for recognizing the symptoms again. In 1958, when
Herken says Wisner's paranoid manias were becoming obvious to his friends and colleagues,
"Frank put forward a theory that the careless comment which had gotten George Kennan kicked out
of the Soviet Union was evidence the Soviets had succeeded in an area where the CIA's own
scientists had failed: mind control. Some agency hands alleged that Wisner attributed his own
increasingly bizarre behaviour to the Kremlin's sly manipulation."
From Washington in 1958, fast forward to Washington in 2017; for mind control and sly
manipulation, read Russian hacking and cyber warfare. From Wisner's and Kennan's balloon drops
of leaflets and broadcasts by Radio Free Europe, fast forward to Russia Today Television and
Russian infiltrations of Twitter, Google, the Democratic National Committee, and the Trump
organization.
It stands to reason (ahem!) that if you think what the US Government and its
journalists were doing then was mad, you are might conclude that what they is doing now is just
as mad – and not very different. When the incumbent president and his Secretary of State
publicly call for IQ tests on each other, all reason has failed. "The nation," as Alsop had
written, "had simply taken leave of all sense of proportion." That was in March 1954.
If you fast forward to now, there's one difference. Today the lunatic Russia warfighters
don't retire. They also don't fade away. Today's sleek successors to mad Wisner and mad Graham
sleep easily in their beds a-nights. For what they've done and do, they wouldn't dream of
taking shotguns to their heads.
Herken retells the story of the campaign Alsop waged against McCarthyism at the State
Department, against McCarthy himself, and the vulnerability Alsop himself presented until the
Boston lawyer Joseph Welch put an end to McCarthy on June 9, 1954 : "Have you no sense of decency,
sir, at long last?" Welch famously said. "Have you left no sense of decency?" The recurring
history reveals why, even if there are plenty of people to say the same thing today to the
Washington Post, New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the madness will continue
repeating itself.
Wisner has a son named Frank, who is a pro-Kosovo Albanian/anti-Serb/anti-Russian
fiend. Kennan later became a responsibly more calming voice on Russia. Concerning the Capitol Hill establishment -
Nonetheless, I remember that Kennan was a strong opponent against NATO expansion in the
90's, after the collapse of the USSR. I think there were good reasons to make an alliance
against the spread of communism, but after this ended in Europe, of course, NATO should have
dissolved just like the Warsaw Pact.
Wages are low in Estonia compared to Sweden. So the Swedish corporations will move some
factories to Estonia to make more money. That is the "powerhouse". The Estonians will not see
much to the money. But they get what is wages in Estonia of course.
"The Cold War, I would remind readers, started in November 1917 when the Bolsheviks took
power in Russia Undiscouraged and terrified of a socialist revolution in Russia, the
so-called Entente [Great Britain and France] tossed fat rolls of banknotes to anyone who said
he would fight the Soviets. The Entente sent its own forces to the four distant corners of
Russia to do the job themselves. This was the 'Allied' intervention which continued until the
beginning of 1921 in the west and until 1922 in Eastern Siberia," ~ Professor Michael Jabara
Carley of the University of Montreal
"Interestingly enough, the term "Russophobia" was first used by Fyodor Tyutchev (1803 --
1873), famous Russian poet, diplomat and politician in reference to growing Western
hostilities against Russia on the "eve" of the Crimean War (1854-56) between the Russian
Empire and an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia.
Historians elaborate that the so-called "Russophobia campaign" actually started as early as
the 1820s -- instigated by Britain -- following Russia's glorious victory over Napoleonic
France in 1812-13.
"British hostility towards Russia had recurred periodically ever since the late eighteenth
century. In had become increasingly apparent, albeit in a gradual and evolutionary fashion,
in the years after Waterloo Fear of Russia's aims in Europe and Asia surfaced as early as
1817," American historian Edward M. Spiers wrote in his book "Radical General: Sir George de
Lacy Evans, 1787-1870."
"Britons were especially concerned about their dominance in Central Asia and the "Russian
threat" to their hegemonic ambitions in the region. According British diplomat Sir Martin
Ewans, in the 1820s-30s London deemed that it would be "unwise" to allow the Russian Empire
to extend its influence over Caucasus, Persia and Afghanistan. "That Russophobia existed is
undeniable," Sir Ewans remarked in his book "Conflict in Afghanistan: Studies in Asymmetric
Warfare."
"Remarkably, in the 1860s, Russian ethnologist, philosopher and historian Nikolai
Danilevsky slammed the Western propaganda machine for spreading distorted information and
blatant lies about the "Russian threat" and imaginary "expansionist ambitions" of the Russian
Empire in his book "Russia and Europe."
https://sputniknews.com/pol...
Its incredible one country can sit half the planet away "not allowing" another country "to
spread its influence" to its neighbours.
When this is the case, this country´s culture is pervercy and sick.
Neocons already poisoned the well of US-Russian cooperation. They already unleashes witch hunt in
best McCarthyism traditions. What else do they want ? Why they continue to waive this dead chicken?
Notable quotes:
"... people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: ..."
"... Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story? ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. ..."
"... Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent
investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that
was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator
Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said:
We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee.
Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information
in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator
Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report
that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed
with a particular political agenda. In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy.
Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee
has interviewed and the volume of work that's been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:
Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising
250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000
documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57
hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents
and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.
It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions,
then what's the point?
Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified
in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy.
From the Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the
US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have
high confidence in these judgments.
This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge
is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity.
There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based
on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts– who are charged with providing
our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security– would indulge in
this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think
this gibberish should be taken seriously.
Here's more from the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because
he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't think.
The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is
it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength
seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. Also, it
would have been better if the ICA's authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the
point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report's credibility.
To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed
to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:
"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said
Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting
the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition
to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate
for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr added that the committee's
review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and they've interviewed every official
in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans
in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The Nation)
That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250
hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence
that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case
not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people
testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with
the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point
of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare
moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem:
"There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into
all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial
findings because we haven't any."
Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's
not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't
the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every
other part of this story?
Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so they
decided to scrub the story altogether?
But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of Russia
meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all
the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness
testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence
of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.
So here's a question for critical minded readers:
If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections,
then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't really make sense,
does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't the burden of truth fall
on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty
or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?
Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter,
because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple.
That's why they have excluded
any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would
the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder,
Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he
also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President
Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the
Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what
actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange
been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?
Don't bet on it.
What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted
that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor has he even been
contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who
can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.
Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence
that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a foreign government. McGovern's
work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern
been invited to testify?
How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent
report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the hacking theory,
as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled "A New Report Raises
Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the
ICA.
Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the
Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the
form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not involved in the
DNC email scandal.
Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible
witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that has dominated
the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?
Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence
that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.
So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting
an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?
It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public
with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as
a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that
has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous
and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon
to Vladivostok.
Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative
is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics
perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum
Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives.
The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.
Something about real foreign influence in Washington corridors of power ... Bankrolling
think tanks is pretty slick idea.
Notable quotes:
"... Close with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top national security officials, Otaiba has bankrolled nearly every major think tank in Washington. ..."
"... The diplomat has worked tirelessly for nearly two decades to push Washington's defense and foreign policy establishment to adopt MBZ's hawkish ideas on Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other contentious policy areas. Otaiba has been a leading voice in Washington for the war in Yemen, where the UAE operates torture warehouses and funds death squads. The conflict has left more than 10,000 dead and countless more starving and stricken with a cholera epidemic of historic proportions. ..."
Otaiba has become one of the most powerful and well-connected men in Washington,
reportedly in touch with Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and adviser, on a
weekly basis. His spending on galas, hospital wings, dinner parties, and birthday bashes has become
legendary. Close with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top national security officials, Otaiba
has
bankrolled nearly every major think tank in Washington.
The Emirati envoy's cachet stems in part from his close relationship with Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan,
who is widely considered to be the effective ruler of the UAE. The crown prince of Abu Dhabi, he
is known in the region and in Washington by his initials MBZ. Since 2000, Otaiba has reported directly
to MBZ as his head of international affairs, and then as the ambassador in Washington. "Before I
was introduced to him, the way he was described to me was the guy MBZ trusts most on foreign issues
and one of the smartest people in the UAE," said Kristofer Harrison, a former Bush administration
official who worked closely with Otaiba.
The diplomat has worked tirelessly for nearly two decades to push Washington's defense and foreign
policy establishment to adopt MBZ's hawkish ideas on Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other contentious
policy areas. Otaiba has been a leading voice in Washington for the war in Yemen, where the UAE
operates torture warehouses
and
funds death squads. The conflict has left more than 10,000 dead and countless more starving and
stricken with a cholera epidemic of historic proportions.
A fixture among Washington society, Otaiba spent much of the last decade carefully constructing
the image of an enlightened Persian Gulf diplomat -- forward-thinking on women's rights, secularism,
and embracing the modern world. On International Women's Day this year, he published an
open letter to his young daughter to drive the point home.
Otaiba's homeland, meanwhile, does not often live up to such values. The UAE has some of the most
draconian sex crime laws of any place in the world. Just last week,
a man and a woman were arrested for having a conversation in a car while being unrelated and
unmarried. This week, two defendants were spared prison time for the crime of "
indecent attire ," but fined and deported nonetheless.
Swisher wouldn't confirm or deny the identity of the American operative, but he said that with
the American political class focused on foreign intervention in the affairs of the United States,
now is an appropriate time to run the follow-up investigation. "I hear the U.S. is having problems
with foreign interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our
findings in America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits
from that debate," he said.
"... Is not all this noise about Rooskies has one and only one goal – to divert attention from the "gorilla" and her "struggle for survival" in the Middle East and in the US Congress? https://theintercept.com/2017/10/09/an-al-jazeera-reporter-went-undercover-with-the-pro-israel-lobby-in-washington/ ..."
They need Russia to be an enemy to justify their actions and the Europeans want to
use the US to threaten Russia. Its a shame this can't be generalized against all foreign
agents of influence. The US Mainstream Media is basically an arm of the Hasbara. Their guest
from think tanks are foreign agents of influence. Its not fun watching a bunch of foreigners
and their domestic owned Americans run the US Empire into the ground.
" a documentary focused on Israeli influence in the U.S., the existence of which has
previously been suspected but had yet to be made public. The four-part series, "The Lobby,"
dug into the Israeli embassy in London, as well as several other pro-Israel lobby groups,
and their campaign to "take down" British Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
The investigation led to the resignation of a top Israeli official in London, as well as
a high-profile complaint that Al Jazeera had broken broadcasting regulations in the United
Kingdom. One of the complaints charged the investigation with anti-Semitism, but the
government board ruled that imputing such a motive to a film critical of Israel would be
akin to calling a series on gang violence racist.
Ofcom received complaints about the series from pro-Israel British activists and a
former Israel embassy employee. It dismissed all charges, which included anti-Semitism,
bias, unfair editing, and the infringement of privacy. It ruled that as per the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's guidance: "It did not consider that such a
critical analysis of the actions of a foreign state constituted anti-Semitism, particularly
as the overall focus of the programme was to examine whether the State of Israel was acting
in a manner that would be expected of other democratic nations."
"... According to SimilarWeb, it only gets a total of 2.5 million monthly visitors from the US. That's almost an Unz.com like level of visitorship even though Ron's budget and attention of social media/advertising crap is many orders of magnitude lower than Sputniks. Russian taxpayers don't deserve this. ..."
"... What was made clear by Mr. Lincoln and his Civil War was that the WASP Elites, the Yankee rich and powerful, saw the 1st Amendment as meaning all speech they supported would be actively promoted by Government while all speech they opposed would be shut down. ..."
"... It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair game. ..."
"... Without Russia the US Army would have no real reason to exist, ..."
"... the US Army is a large political force with many bases, half a million people, and a huge budget. ..."
"... The big corps are using their bought government to eliminate competition to their concentrated domestic media oligarchy. They can buy up all the domestic outlets, those outside have to be banned. It is ludicrous to blame foreigners for all your ills, when the vast majority of your country is itself made up of foreigners and their descendants, except for the tiny remainder of American Indians. Which identifies properly another way to identify the enemy destroying your nation: look in the mirror first. ..."
"... I think the big issue is that money runs the show. Big media, which is where many people still get their information is just rotten at the core. How to fix it? I don't know – maybe the internet (which is still relatively young) will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses. ..."
"... "Russiagate" has been a farce from the very beginning, an attempt by that fat-ass witch to divert attention from the 30K emails–which is where the REAL scandal lies!! And where do we stand on that issue anyway? I won't hold my breath waiting. ..."
"... Propaganda? Our political class is going to protect us from Propaganda? Our bureaucracies, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, are going to protect us from Propaganda? If it doesn't jibe with what our media organs of record are putting out, they're going to stamp it Propaganda? Don't make me laugh! The Propaganda is that those clowns wouldn't call a pig a duck for a dime's worth of advantage. ..."
"... This action on the part of the Sessions DOJ is hypocritical in light of the fact that we routinely undermine governments and institutions in Ukraine and Russia via our NGO's and in any nation whose foreign policy is deemed an impediment to the goals Israel and their American vassal state. ..."
"... Every banned political speech has always been banned because it was deemed 'subversive' or 'divisive'. Or the new 20th century term 'propaganda'. This has been the case for thousands of years, the censors always say that. No censor ever just banned free expression or said that it has to be banned because it is true. The banning is also often done by admin harassment, 'foreign agent' label, cutting access, etc.. ..."
"... So the latest hysteria about banning RT/Sputnik is squarely in the mainstream of censorship. It meets all the usual criteria: foreign influence, trying to stir up discord, undermining the system (that would be 'democracy' in US). And the methods are also the usual one: registration, harassment, restriction on distribution, etc ..."
2. They are ineffective, especially Sputnik. According to SimilarWeb, it only gets a
total of 2.5 million monthly visitors from the US. That's almost an Unz.com like level of
visitorship even though Ron's budget and attention of social media/advertising crap is many
orders of magnitude lower than Sputniks. Russian taxpayers don't deserve this.
3. Gives Russia a great excuse to kick out dishonest Western journalists (about 75% of
them).
The Europeans don't want to have American military bases there.
Not true. Some Europeans may not want that, but many others are perfectly content with the
state of the affairs. As per Eastern Europe–majority of them want US military
bases.
What was made clear by Mr. Lincoln and his Civil War was that the WASP Elites, the
Yankee rich and powerful, saw the 1st Amendment as meaning all speech they supported would be
actively promoted by Government while all speech they opposed would be shut down.
That was in keeping with the culture's source: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. Puritans spouted
Free Speech all day and all of the night, and if you dared speak against Cromwell or the
Revolution, you paid dearly.
Hypocrisy about free speech is deep in the WASP DNA.
Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes. WASP culture is Germanic. Germanics have always
seen Slavs as inferior peoples they should war against perpetually, to steal their best land
and make serfs of the survivors. This obsession with screwing with Russia is simply the
contemporary manifestation of that part of the problem of unrestrained Germanic culture.
we are allowed to air views that are essentially banned on the mainstream media to include
critique of maladroit policies in places like Syria and Afghanistan and biting critiques of
the war on terror.
It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in
American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step,
while Russia is fair game.
I don't trust Russia any more than you do. I have even less, much less, trust, for the UK,
Germany, France, the EU, as well as America's Democrats and Neocons.
If the Feds are going to make RT register as a foreign agent due to foreign funding, where
does it stop? On the same basis, all nationally owned news outlets must be forced to
register, e.g., BBC, Al Jezeera, etc. And what about nominally non-government owned news
entities that a home government renders financial assistance, eg, the London Times, if it
needed government loans to survive? Would it be a British foreign agent?
And what about the
New York Times, which in its perilous financial state appears to be substantially supported
by loans from a Mexican National, Carlos Slim who in turn must be assumed to work
hand-in-hand with the Mexican government, since most of his wealth comes from Mexican
government-granted franchises.
Should the New York Times be registered as a Mexican foreign
agent (its news coverage and editorials regarding immigration certainly would be evidence it
is acting in that capacity)?
OT If anyone wants to catch a nice laid back interview with Phil Geraldi they can do so
here:
A lengthy discussion about his sacking at TAC and AIPAC is had with Ryan Dawson. Both put
in nice plugs for unz.com. I was really happy to see Phil being interviewed by Ryan. I hope
they do this again sometime.
I came to Unz for Steve Sailer but Geraldi is slowly becoming my favorite author here.
Thanks for sticking with things Phil. You're doing great work.
That was in keeping with the culture's source: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. Puritans spouted
Free Speech all dan and all of the night, and if you dared speak against Cromwell or the
Revolution, you paid dearly.
Hypocrisy about free speech is deep in the WASP DNA.
Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes. WASP culture is Germanic. Germanics have always
seen Slavs as inferior peoples they should war against perpetually, to steal their best
land and make serfs of the survivors. This obsession with screwing with Russia is simply
the contemporary manifestation of that part of the problem of unrestrained Germanic
culture.
What of King Arthur? How did Britain go from Arthur to Cromwell?
What role Henry VIII, and Dutch banking/ Bank of England?
How did Russia go from Tolstoy to Trotsky?
What role Jacob Schiff and atheist Bolshevism/Communism?
How did Germany go from Wagner to Merkel( after a brief Hitler Interruptus )?
What role Rothschild, Marx/Zinoviev and Zionism?
FDR and Churchill were determined to keep organizationally strong Germany and
resource-rich Russia -- Christian Russia -- from uniting; Cromwell's England and Morgenthau's
USA wanted to control German skill and Russian resources; their heirs want the same
today.
Arthur's Britain and Wagner's Germany are natural allies of Tolstoy's Russia (and also
of Virgil's Italy and Ferdowsi's Persia, btw).
Toss over this White nonsense, it tells no story, moves no souls.
"Sputnik ..has been under investigation due to the accusations made by a fired broadcaster
named Andrew Feinberg."
The amazing thing is that Feinberg ever had the job. In this painful interview, he readily
admits to little knowledge and less interest in the particulars of Ukrainian/Crimean/Russian
history, politics and recent events. Despite this inadequacy, he's managed to use his
dismissal for self-promotion.
Talking to ex-Sputnik employee Andrew Feinberg about "Russian propaganda"
And on the flip side maybe all the Jewish/Israeli news organizations will register too,
maybe even AIPAC.
Foreign is foreign and fighting wars for foreign interests is no virtue.
It's no wonder we are able to make so many new frands and they just moving into the west
everywhere.
Spending taxpayer money in foreign countries is helping the US taxpayer. I guess moving a
quarter of the population that said foreign country can't take care of and dumping them on
the US taxpayer and their children is our gift. Then give them jobs here too.
This lovely
idea was signed initially during the Clinton admin with the UN, and put into place during the
Bush admin. Dems just hate corps except when they are their own. (Hegelian Dialectic at play
everywhere) 20 Rillion in Debt. Millennium Challenge Corporation
"MCC is a prime example of smart U.S. Government assistance in action, benefiting both
developing countries and U.S. taxpayers through:
Competitive selection: Before a country can become eligible to receive assistance, MCC's
Board examines its performance on independent and transparent policy indicators and selects
compact-eligible countries based on policy performance.
Country-led solutions: MCC requires selected countries to identify their priorities for
achieving sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. Countries develop their MCC
proposals in broad consultation within their society. MCC teams then work in close
partnership to help countries refine a program.
Country-led implementation: MCC administers the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). When a
country is awarded a compact, it sets up its own local MCA accountable entity to manage and
oversee all aspects of implementation. Monitoring of funds is rigorous and transparent, often
through independent fiscal agents.
MCC forms partnerships with some of the world's poorest countries, but only those committed
to: good governance,
economic freedom,
and investments in their citizens."
@Wade
Interesting interview. Kind of disappointed not to see any evidence of Christianity in
Giraldi's home, or at least not in that camera shot. Maybe his naïveté in
approaching the issue, which brought on the artillary barrage, is due to his being oblivious
to the larger spiritual, civilizational, battle going on. Forest/trees.
"Accumulating knowledge is a form of avarice and lends itself to another version of the
Midas story man is so avid for knowledge that everything that he touches turns to facts;
his faith becomes theology; his love becomes lechery; his wisdom becomes science; pursuing
meaning, he ignores truth." -Malcolm Muggeridge
Without Russia the US Army would have no real reason to exist, Canada and Mexico
being benign, because we all know that the US taxpayers are on the hook to defend Europe
against the nasty powerful Russians which (mainly) defeated Germany in the last big one, and
the US Army is a large political force with many bases, half a million people, and a huge
budget.
The big corps are using their bought government to eliminate competition to their
concentrated domestic media oligarchy. They can buy up all the domestic outlets, those
outside have to be banned. It is ludicrous to blame foreigners for all your ills, when the vast majority of your
country is itself made up of foreigners and their descendants, except for the tiny remainder
of American Indians. Which identifies properly another way to identify the enemy destroying
your nation: look in the mirror first.
@Anatoly
Karlin What you hope for is not in the interest of those of us who believe in free and
unfettered discourse, which principle is one of the core reasons to believe in ideals that
are supposed to define America.
It's fine to question foreign funded media, but it's against everything we are supposed to
stand for to ban them.
As the famous jurist wrote, the answer to bad speech is more speech.
Let's debate what's said by foreigners, and their advocates, whether Russian, British,
Israeli or any other. Our own government is not famous for truthfulness to the public,
either. Let our own government answer them, if they question it, and let us determine where
the truth lies, instead of being lied to.
I watch programs on RT fairly frequently, and moreso with the arrival of the current crop
of sitcoms, mindlessly insane 'dramas', firemen and cops shows, etc. Lotsa good stuff on RT.
If you read the credits, you will find that most of the specials and magazines are not
Russian productions. It's a good place to learn that much of the rest of world journalism
bears no resemblance to the propaganda machines of the US networks.
US TV and radio production is a vast web of fabrications designed for social control, to
manipulate public opinion, and to reinforce the will of the wealthy and powerful. The US
government is corrupt throughout; the purpose of US media is to turn the public eye away from
that corruption.
@Der Mann
ohne Eigenschaften A decade or so ago, when we still had a number of US bases in Germany,
my German colleagues and neighbors used to ask why most of the GIs never left the base and
only used Dollars for most of their commerce, again mostly on base, though a few merchants
took Dollars on a rather good exchange basis that a local could arbitrage if he was paying
attention. I experienced some of that a few decades ago myself when on TDY in Europe. The US
might want bases there, but a non-trivial number of the troops can't be bothered to wander
outside the gates very often, and may as well be in Nebraska or South Dakota for all their
interest in being there.
As for the Europeans, a lot of the local merchants did want the bases there, and a lot of
the locals welcomed the Amis. There were also places where the Amis represented a big payoff
for the smallest things; you would be surprised how productive egg-layers Portuguese chickens
were after you ran over one and found yourself compensating the farmer for all the eggs it
would have laid in its life.
I'm not sure why it is but we always seem to be on the Muslims side, everywhere to the
detriment of our own societies.
"Russia may be tightening its grip on Crimea, with little resistance to date, but they
have yet to face the Crimean Tatar factor.
There are 266,000 Crimean Tatars in Crimea, over 13% of the local population. They are
Sunni Muslim, traditionally pro-Ukrainian, and much better organized than the local
Ukrainians, who make up 23% of the population."
"For more than a year, Chechens, Muslims from southwestern Russia, have been fighting on
both sides of Ukraine's struggle against Russian occupation.
The undeniably frank reason one anti-Russia militiaman recently gave The New York Times?
"We always fight the Russians."
The Chechens have had a long and tense relationship with Russia's central government,
alternatively fighting for independence and courting special favor from the rulers in Moscow.
When Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in March 2014, it once again gave
Chechens a reason to push back against Russian overreach"
We have plenty of Muslims in Congress to represent their people. I'm sure our alphabet
agencies have plenty too. According to Wikipedia almost no one likes Russia.
"Widespread ethnic cleansing accompanied the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina
(1992–95), as large numbers of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and Bosnian Croats were
forced to flee their homes and were expelled by Bosnian Serbs;[1] and some Bosnian Croats
also carried out similar campaign against Bosniaks and Serbs. Also, Bosnian Muslims conducted
similar acts against Croats, especially in Central Bosnia.[2]"
Fought for these in Afghanistan. Ex president made a home at the UN.
"The Afghan Northern Alliance, officially known as the United Islamic Front for the Salvation
of Afghanistan (Persian: جبهه متحد
اسلامی ملی برای
نجات
افغانستان Jabha-yi Muttahid-i
Islāmi-yi Millī barāyi Nijāt-i Afghānistān), was a military
front that came to formation in late 1996 after the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban)
took over Kabul. The United Front was assembled by key leaders of the Islamic State of
Afghanistan, particularly president Burhanuddin Rabbani and former Defense Minister Ahmad
Shah Massoud. Initially it included mostly Tajiks but by 2000, leaders of other ethnic groups
had joined the Northern Alliance. This included Abdul Rashid Dostum, Mohammad Mohaqiq, Abdul
Qadir, Asif Mohseni and others."
I like what you're bringing to the table here. I think the big issue is that money runs
the show. Big media, which is where many people still get their information is just rotten at
the core. How to fix it? I don't know – maybe the internet (which is still relatively
young) will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses.
But that is also a big IF – since there is so much on the internet which is just
trash and lacks any sort of serious vetting. Peace.
"Russiagate" has been a farce from the very beginning, an attempt by that fat-ass witch to
divert attention from the 30K emails–which is where the REAL scandal lies!! And where
do we stand on that issue anyway? I won't hold my breath waiting.
@Talhawill be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses
Whose truth?
Plus, there is a difference between discourse and propaganda.
The 88s here are not confounded so much by not being allowed free discourse as they are
whinging about the fact that their propaganda and motivated opinion pieces are not
carried 24/7 by every available outlet.
Here's an articulate source. Until the web gets outright censored, beyond the select
eliminating and demonetizing that's happening now. See also Ryan Dawson's interview of Phil
at comment #28.
And why is that? Because your government and their MSM sycophants have brainwashed you to
think that way? It's time people like you that have this inherent distrust of Russia get a
grip and start using some critical thinking skills. I know that's really hard but give it a
try, o.k.?
@iffenwill be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses
Whose truth? Plus, there is a difference between discourse and propaganda. The 88s here are not confounded so much by not being allowed free discourse as they are
whinging about the fact that their propaganda and motivated opinion pieces are not
carried 24/7 by every available outlet.
Whose truth?
I'll just be happy to get facts at this point. Most can't be bothered to get that part
straight. The MSM dropped the baton big time. Now people all over the internet are picking it
up – the problem I see is information glut. How does one sift through the incredible
amount of information.
Sputnik and RT are targeted in order to keep the "Boogey Man" alive by the following
parties:
1) Globalist Banksters – They desperately need continued wars to distract the global
peasants from the banker-caused multi-hundred trillion $ coming derivatives time-bomb and to
keep their drug wash flow going. Also, its getting more and more difficult to keep under
wraps the Dual-Financing of the "Official" Govts and "Deep State (SSP)" Govts. "Gotta keep
those Kabbalistic Blood Sacrifices going or our Invisible Sky Daddy will be mad at us and
won't let us on the Space Ship".
2) Big Pharma Slime (Vaccines/Viruses), GMO Sickos, Trans-Humanist Psychos, and Fascist
Neo-Cons – "Just trying to get that Agenda21 Borg World going". 500 million
micro-chipped global population is the goal.
3) The MIC – "We need more wars so we can keep force feeding our over-priced pieces of
crap to our satellite colonies" and multi-trillion $ financial redirect to the SSP.
4) Israel – Russia and Iran (Persia) are the perennial enemies of the Talmudic
Terrorists for kicking the Fake Jewish Khazarians/AshkeNAZIs out of their Western Asian
homelands around 1250 AD. The psychotic and retarded (613 Talmudic Commandments, REALLY?)
Clan Circumcision has a thing for blood feuds. Did you lose another Dolphin-Class
Submarine?
5) The dying USSA Empire of Tampons and associated prostitute Politicos – Former
colonies are fleeing East faster than Barry from his wife Michael er, I meant Michelle.
Petro-Dollar going poof. USSA economy heading for the big flush regardless of the jiggered
Plunge Protection Team numbers. "Must keep distracting our willfully-gullible peasant masses
with more False Flags and Wars else they wise up and HANG US ALL".
And lastly
6) Hillawi Bin-Gazi Dykehar – Former candidate with continued delusional desires for
Puppet Pres. of the USSA and current Jihadi commandante of Al-Shiksa. Al-Shiksa was last seen
campaigning at Costco. This terrorist group is populated by fat ill-tempered donut-bumping
Psycho Wenches and Cucked Eunuchs. Their battle cry is rumored to be "We love chocolate
cake!!!" or "Damn those Weiner Tapes!!!". Sorry, my Shiksanese is not up to speed.
RT talks about mass immigration problems,
shows more inside of Israel including their nasty policies,
questions neocons and liberals.
For an English speaking forum that is rare. The comment section.. sometimes its okay, sometimes bad.
You will find conservative/traditional posters majority.
Go to BBC, CNN, etc its liberal/"progressive" dominated. In the West Neocons and Liberals dominate the media. RT obviously has an agenda, probably divide. Sometimes comments get deleted.
Propaganda? Our political class is going to protect us from Propaganda? Our bureaucracies,
the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, are going to protect us from Propaganda? If it doesn't jibe
with what our media organs of record are putting out, they're going to stamp it Propaganda?
Don't make me laugh!
The Propaganda is that those clowns wouldn't call a pig a duck for a dime's worth of
advantage.
"The Russians tried to influence our election" taken at face value and removed from the
context of 65 years of American Foreign Policy is probably the most pernicious little bit of
self serving swamp propaganda that I've ever seen. It appears to be the factoid that the
Uniparty and its legions have chosen upon which to make their last stand and to hell with the
American people.
To be quite frank I hope that the US declares RT/Sputnik foreign agents (or bans them
outright). – I hope you wrote this thoughtlessly because you were exasperated or
upset or something. You should perhaps take it back. There is no question that Russia is
better off with RT and Sputnik than w/o them. Any child understands it.
This assault on the First Amendment shows that the driving force behind the neocons is not
American. A real American would tend to value the Constitution more.
As Priss Factor mentioned, RT and Sputnik do tend to be left of center on many issues, but
they do appear to be sincere and independent leftists in contrast to the American prog
establishment which has become just a dog and pony show controlled and directed by Jewish
billionaires like Soros. RT especially is no friend of white nationalism although they have
given figures on the racialist right air time on occasion.
I do find they are more objective in foreign policy matters whereas the U.S. media ,
including, FOX, all sing from the same song sheet on foreign policy matters and only differ
slightly in degree. But they rarely seem to criticize Israel.
This action on the part of the Sessions DOJ is hypocritical in light of the fact that we
routinely undermine governments and institutions in Ukraine and Russia via our NGO's and in
any nation whose foreign policy is deemed an impediment to the goals Israel and their
American vassal state.
Every banned political speech has always been banned because it was deemed 'subversive' or
'divisive'. Or the new 20th century term 'propaganda'. This has been the case for thousands
of years, the censors always say that. No censor ever just banned free expression or said
that it has to be banned because it is true. The banning is also often done by admin
harassment, 'foreign agent' label, cutting access, etc..
So the latest hysteria about banning RT/Sputnik is squarely in the mainstream of
censorship. It meets all the usual criteria: foreign influence, trying to stir up discord,
undermining the system (that would be 'democracy' in US). And the methods are also the usual
one: registration, harassment, restriction on distribution, etc
It is a minor issue and mainly matters symbolically. But it is going to give US democracy
and freedom of speech reputation a black eye. How does recover once speech is banned because
it is causing 'division in the society'? The problem is that the ruling class simply doesn't
understand what classical liberal values are – they talk a lot, they 'lawyer' a lot,
but have no understanding of what a free society looks like.
FARA was a powerful tool against attempts to stage a color revolution in the particular
county. But it can't save decaying neolineraim. which by now probably exceeed useful shelf life.
The only thing that is keeping it afoot is there is no political force capable to provide viable
alternative. That's it. Bastard neoliberalism of Trump is essentially the acceptance of the
defeat.
The charge "Intended to discredit the United States government and its institutions" is too
broad change and if applied indiscriminately no other entity other then government controlled
press can operate in the country.
As a short term measure it definitely will be effective (although it increase popularity of
RT.uk or RT.ca) as this essentially shut down both in the USA. RT can operate much like Guardian
. But in a longer term, blacklisting RT (Sputnik is not that important) is a sign of weakness,
not strength.
But eventually the boomerang might return and not necessary for entities like "Voice of
America" (which after the collapse of the USA became a zombie for the xUSSR audiences). While
influence of Voice of America on foreign audience now is minuscule and this is mostly money
wasted due to decline of neoliberal ideology (and with it prestige and influence of the USA) ,
they can now be shut down with impunity, by any foreign government inclined to do so.
So in a way, the US actions engager crown jewels of its propaganda machine. also any such
action is a sign of weakness not strength by definition. It just signify that the tratment of
neoliberalism in RT can't be fought by directly.
And not only Voice of America but also similar, potentially more effective propaganda
entities. In effect that is the acceptable of the fact that neoliberal MSM are losing grip on the
population and require coercive measures against competitors.
Notable quotes:
"... The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading disinformation ..."
"... This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. ..."
"... Feinberg, the former Sputnik White House correspondent, reportedly took with him a thumb drive containing some thousands of internal business files when he left his office. ..."
"... News organizations are normally considered to be exempt from the requirements of FARA. ..."
"... The DOJ is in effect saying that RT and Sputnik are nothing more than propaganda organs and do not qualify as journalism. I would have to disagree if one goes by the standards of contemporary journalism in the United States. ..."
"... they have been as often as not leading propaganda organs for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, pushing a particular agenda and denigrating Donald Trump. They differ little from the admittedly biased television news reporting provided by Fox News and MSNBC. ..."
"... Regarding Sputnik, Feinberg claimed inter alia ..."
Somehow everything keeps coming back around to Russia. In one of its recent initiatives, the
Justice Department (DOJ) appears to be attacking the First Amendment as part of the apparent
bipartisan program to make Vladimir Putin the fall guy for everything that goes wrong in
Washington. In the past month, the DOJ has revealed that the
FBI is investigating Russian owned news outlets Sputnik News and RT International and has
sent
letters to the latter demanding that one of its business affiliates register as a foreign
agent by October 17 th . The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is
pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading
disinformation that is intended to discredit the United States government and its
institutions.
This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign
government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury
oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.
Sputnik , which is owned by a Russian
government media group headed by Putin consigliere Dimitri Kiselyov, has been under
investigation due to the accusations made by a fired broadcaster named Andrew Feinberg.
Feinberg, the former Sputnik White House correspondent, reportedly took with him a thumb
drive containing some thousands of internal business files when he left his office. He has
been interviewed by the FBI, has turned over his documents, and has claimed that much of the
direction over what the network covered came from Moscow.
RT America , more television oriented
than Sputnik, operates through
two business entities : RTTV America and RTTV Studios. The Department of Justice has
refused to identify which of the businesses has been targeted by a letter calling for
registration under FARA, but it is believed to be RTTV America, which provides both operational
support of the broadcasting as well as the production facilities. Both companies are actually
owned by Russian-American businessman Alex Yazlovsky, though the funding for them presumably
comes from the Russian government.
I have noticed very little pushback in the U.S. mainstream and alternative media regarding
the Department of Justice moves, presumably because there is a broad consensus that the
Russians have been interfering in our "democracy" and have had it coming. If that assumption on
my part is correct, the silence over the issue reflects a certain naïvete while also
constituting a near perfect example of a pervasive tunnel vision that obscures the significant
collateral damage that might be forthcoming.
News organizations are normally considered to be exempt from the requirements of
FARA. The Department of Justice action against the two Russian major media outlets is
unprecedented insofar as I could determine. Even Qatar owned al-Jazeera, which was so vilified
during the early stages of the Afghan War that it had its Kabul offices
bombed by the U.S., did not have to register under FARA, was permitted to operate freely,
and was even allowed to buy a television channel license for its American operations.
The DOJ is in effect saying that RT and Sputnik are nothing more than propaganda organs
and do not qualify as journalism. I would have to disagree if one goes by the standards of
contemporary journalism in the United States. America's self-described "newspapers of
record" the New York Times and the Washington Post pretend that they have a
lock on stories that are "true." The Post has adopted the slogan "Democracy Dies in
Darkness" while the Times proclaims "The truth is more important now than ever," but
anyone who has read either paper regularly for the past year knows perfectly well that they
have been as often as not leading propaganda organs for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic
Party, pushing a particular agenda and denigrating Donald Trump. They differ little from the
admittedly biased television news reporting provided by Fox News and MSNBC.
What exactly did the Russians do? According to last January's report signed off on
by the FBI, CIA and NSA, which may have motivated the DOJ to take action, RT and Sputnik
"consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional U.S.
media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment." Well,
they certainly got that one right and did better in their reporting of what was going on among
the American public than either the Washington Post or New York Times .
Regarding Sputnik, Feinberg
claimedinter alia that he was "pushed" to ask questions at White House press
briefings suggesting that Syria's Bashar al-Assad was not responsible for some of the chemical
attacks that had taken place. One wonders at Feinberg's reluctance as Sputnik and RT were not
the only ones expressing skepticism over the claims of Syrian involvement, which have been
widely debunked. And why is expressing a credible alternative view on an event in Syria even
regarded as propaganda damaging to the American public?
There is a difficult to distinguish line between FARA restricted "trying to influence
opinion" using what is regarded a fake news and propaganda and legitimate journalism reporting
stories where the "facts" have been challenged. Even real journalists choose to cover stories
selectively, inevitably producing a certain narrative for the viewer, listener or reader. All
news services do that to a greater or lesser extent.
I have considerable personal experience of RT in particular and, to a lesser extent, with
Sputnik. I also know many others who have been interviewed by one or both. No one who has done
so has ever been coached or urged to follow a particular line or support a specific position
insofar as I know. Nor do I know anyone who has actually been paid to appear. Most of us who
are interviewed are appreciative of the fact that we are allowed to air views that are
essentially banned on the mainstream media to include critique of maladroit policies in places
like Syria and Afghanistan and biting critiques of the war on terror.
Sputnik, in my opinion, does, however, lean heavily towards stories that are critical of the
United States and its policies, while RT has a global reach and is much more balanced in what
it covers. For sure, it too criticizes U.S. policies and is protective of the Russian
government, but it does not substantially differ from other national news services that I have
had done interviews for. I find as much uniquely generated negative reporting about the U.S.
(usually linked to violence or guns) on BBC World News, France24 and Deutsche Welle as I do on
RT International . To describe it as part of
an "influence campaign" driven by a "state-run propaganda machine" has a kernel of truth but it
is nevertheless a bit of a stretch since one could make the same claims about any government
financed news service, including Voice of America . Governments only get into
broadcasting to promote their points of view, not to inform the public.
There is a serious problem in the threats to use FARA as it could advance the ongoing
erosion of freedom of the press in the United States by establishing the precedent that a
foreign news services that is critical of the U.S. will no longer be tolerated. It is also
hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are
exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair
game.
Going after news outlets also invites retaliation
against U.S. media operating in Russia and, eventually, elsewhere. Currently Western media
reports from Russia pretty much without being censored or pressured to avoid certain stories. I
would note a recent series that appeared on CBS featuring the repulsive
Stephen Colbert spending a week in Russia which
mercilessly lampooned both the country and its government. No one arrested him or made him
stop filming. No one claimed that he was trying to undermine the Russian government or
discredit the country's institutions, even though that is precisely what he was doing.
And then there is the issue of the "threat" posed by news media outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Even combined the two services have limited access to the U.S. market, with a 2014 study
suggesting that they have only 2.8 million
actual weekly viewers . RT did not make the cut and is not included on the list of 100 most
popular television channels in the U.S. and it has far less market penetration than other
foreign news services like the BBC. It can be found on only a limited number of cable networks
in a few, mostly urban areas. It does better in Europe, but its profile in the U.S. market is
miniscule. As even bad news is good news in terms of selling a product, it probably did receive
higher ratings when the intelligence agency report slamming it came out on it in January.
Everyone probably wanted to learn what RT was all about.
So it seems to me that the United States' moves against RT and Sputnik are little more than
lashing out at a problem that is not really a problem in a bid to again promote the Russian
"threat" to explain the ongoing dysfunction that prevails in America's democratic process. One
keeps reading or hearing how the American government has "indisputable" proof of Moscow's
intentions to subvert democracy in the U.S. as well as in Europe but the actual evidence is
still elusive. Will Russiagate end with a bang or a whimper? No one seems to know.
The irony is RT news is pretty much dominated by Progs and Leftists. It's not Russian
Nationalist or Conservative. But it features the kinds of Progs who do question and challenge
Globalist Oligarchs of the West.
They need Russia to be an enemy to justify their actions and the Europeans want to use the
US to threaten Russia. Its a shame this can't be generalized against all foreign agents of
influence. The US Mainstream Media is basically an arm of the Hasbara. Their guest from think
tanks are foreign agents of influence. Its not fun watching a bunch of foreigners and their
domestic owned Americans run the US Empire into the ground.
As psychopaths lose their grip over the target, they change from cool, calm, lie-to-your
face con men to pathetic, shrieking cartoons of themselves.
The shredders were working overtime, bleach bit, hammers, cell phones wiped, people bumped
off, closing up all of the criminal gangster operations of the government before Trump got
in.
They can't get rid of him, not suing for re-counts, not getting him declared incompetent,
not stage-managed riots of Soros stooges, not a fake dossier with Russian whores peeing on
the Donald's bed, not screeching about Russia
Eventually, if our Republic is worth a shit at all, these crimes will finally be
acknowledged and the hysteria over Russia will subside.
What the Russians appear to have clearly recognized is how to take advantage of the
corrupt nature of the western 'mainstream' press, an institution which has been co-opted by
western intelligence agencies for a very long time.
The Russian method? It could not be more simple; report the actual facts in the
geopolitical contest and when this is inconvenient, practice lies by omission
Depending on the geopolitical reality of the day, for instance whether the paranoid
ego-maniac Sultan Erdogan of Turkey is behaving well or not, the stories by western
dissident journalists that will withstand a close scrutiny are run in Russian or Russia
friendly media outlets. The result? Odds are 100:1 you'll get more reliable information
from Russian state TV or Russian sponsored websites than from ABC, CBS, CNN or NBC
My take from 10 or so months ago. I don't really think much has changed except for the
'Russia hacked the election' story is clearly more false than ever; with narcissism queen
Julian Assange holding the story hostage:
Russia has been remarkably restrained in its counteractions. But retaliate fully it will.
China is getting its retaliation in first, with plans for an oil futures market, trading in
yuan, in Shanghai already near completion. The days of the Petro-dollar seem numbered. Will
American hegemony collapse with a bang or a whimper? No one seems to know.
Either way, ten years from now, " Russiagate ", a fake scandal, will be almost completely
forgotten, rather like major real scandals earlier this century like Enron. The latter seems
to have been pushed right down the memory hole.
This is further evidence that the yankee regime walks and talks like a fascist duck. Its
deep state and its media acolytes, Carlos Slim's New York Times, CIA contractor Bezos'
Washington Post, PBS, the corporate parasite broadcast system, CNN, the Clinton News Network,
NBC, home of professional lesbian deepstate lackey Rachel Maddow, CBS and ABC (along with
government owned satellite state medias like BBC, CBC and Australia's ABC are quintessential
propaganda outlets. While the Russian outlets are naturally pro-Russian, they are less openly
propagandistic than the US-controlled propaganda press, which is on the side of barbarism in
its attitudes toward the middle east and NATO issues.
I actually find the quality of guests on RT to be far superior to what the British news
channels offer, embarrassingly so really as these guests seem easy enough to find whilst the
likes of the BBC believe the ill informed opinions of journalists is only of interest. RT UK
is also a lot more politically balanced with most of the media seemingly having ditched the
old ethos that they should at least make some vague attempt at balance. RT's coverage of the
migrant crisis was in stark contrast to the British media's cheer leading. In addition in the
past few years Palestine has completely disappeared from British screens however RT still
covers the occupation as well as matters such as the USS Liberty.
Anyway this does seem like part and parcel of the attempt to increasingly suppress the
press and free speech in the West, whether that is driven by lefty ideologues, zionists, an
unthinking security apparatus or a military with no purpose.
"... Russia is for and against Trump, and is thus destroying American democracy! We have always been at war with Eurasia! Freedom is slavery! ..."
"... The dangerous projection from the US elites where anyone and anything can be turned into something "evil" through the mere suggestion of any connection to Russia is no longer shocking--but that makes it no less disturbing and insidious. ..."
"... the whole thing is quite laughable, if it wasn't taken so seriously by so many doorknobs... ..."
"... b you are right to continue to focus on this issue. The Russia hysteria is beginning to burn itself out. However the msn and the Democrats are now beginning to focus on Google, Twitter and Facebook instead. Hillary last week gave a talk at Stanford calling for those companies to censure false news reports. If her plan was put into effect one of its targets would obviously be MoA along with hundreds of other outlets on both the left and the right that challenge the usual deep state "news" promoted by the mainstream news monopolies. ..."
"... Identifying all of the ways in which it was rigged is still open to debate, but we know for sure that during the primary the DNC manipulated the schedule for "Super Tuesday" so as to pad Clinton's lead with meaningless red states which would never turn out for her in the general, that numerous states also executed suspect purges of their voter roles in precincts leaning heavily toward Bernie Sanders, and that Clinton fraudulently secured the electoral votes of some 400 so-called "super delegates" in order to create the illusion she had popular support. ..."
"... Furthermore, we know that the DNC itself promoted Trump because they wrongly believed that he would be easier to beat in the general election. If anyone really adulterated our democracy during this election, it was the DNC and, as usual, the corporate media apparatus. But as with any large-scale CYA operation, the first order of business is to distract attention away from the domestic perpetrators by hyping up an external threat and projecting all manner of crimes to this shadowy enemy. ..."
"... If one looks at the recent history of which bills pass in congress, and how close the votes lie, it is very easy to see the BIG LIE that these people represent anything other than the corporate interests that pay them the most money. ..."
"... Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Hillary was the same, and I fully expect the next bunch of politicians to show even more stark symptoms. To expect the MSM to do other than purvey the lies and obfuscate and distract is simply an illogical and fallacious expectation - an expectation that money will never allow to be met. ..."
"... This entire Russiagate thing is a distraction, canard, red herring - pick your noun for falsity. It's purpose is to obfuscate other things the corporations and governments are doing elsewhere. Caveat emptor ..."
After the ludicrous "Russian hacking" claims have died down for lack of evidence, the
attention was moved to even more ludicrous claims of "Russian ads influenced the elections".
Some readers are upset that continue to debunk the nonsense the media spreads around this. But
lies should not stand without response. If only to blame the reporters and media who push this
dreck.
As evidence is also lacking for any "Russian interference" claims the media outlets have
started to push deceiving headlines. These make claims that are not covered at all by the
content of the related pieces. The headlines are effective because less than 20% of the viewers
ever read beyond them.
Google has found no ads that "Russia", the state or nation, has bought. There is also no
evidence that the ads in question interfered in any way with the election. There is evidence
that any of the ads in questions aimed to achieve that. The opener of the piece repeats the
false headline claims. But now we have "Russian agents", not "Russia", which allegedly did
something.
Google has found evidence that Russian agents bought ads on its wide-ranging networks in an
effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign.
The term "Russian agents" is not defined at all. Where these "secret agents" or Public
Relation professionals in Washington DC hired by some Russian entity?
Using accounts believed to be connected to the Russian government, the agents purchased
$4,700 worth of search ads and more traditional display ads, according to a person familiar
with the company's inquiry ...
"Accounts believed to be connected to the Russian government." Believed by
whom? And how is "connected" defined? Isn't any citizen "connected" to his or her
government?
Those believed , connected accounts bought a whopping $4,700 of ads?
Googles 2016 revenue was $89,000,000,000. The total campaign expenditures in 2016 were some
$6,000,000,000. The Clinton campaign spent some $480,000 on social network ads alone. But
something "Russian" spending $4,700 was "interference"?
But wait. There is more:
Google found a separate $53,000 worth of ads with political material that were purchased from
Russian internet addresses, building addresses or with Russian currency. It is not clear
whether any of those were connected to the Russian government, and they may have been
purchased by Russian citizens, the person said.
So now we are on to something. A full $53,000 worth of ads. But ....
The messages of those ads spanned the political spectrum. One account spent $7,000 on ads to
promote a documentary called "You've Been Trumped," a film about Donald J. Trump's efforts to
build a golf course in Scotland along an environmentally sensitive coastline. Another spent
$36,000 on ads questioning whether President Barack Obama needed to resign. Yet another
bought ads to promote political merchandise for Mr. Obama.
The film is anti-Trump. Obama not resigning would have been anti-Trump. Selling Obama
merchandise may have been good business, but is certainly not pro-Trump. So at least $43,000 of
a total of $53,000 mentioned above was spent by believed , connected
"Russians" on ads that promoted anti-Trump material. How does that fit with the claims that
"Russia" wished to get Trump elected? Putin pushed the wrong button?
The allegedly "Russian" Facebook ads were just
a click-bait scheme by some people trying to make money. The allegedly "Russian" Goggle ads
were of a volume that is unlikely to have made any difference in anything. They were also
anti-Trump.
Clinton lost because people on all sides had learned to dislike her policies throughout the
years. She was unelectable. Her party was and is acting against the interest of the common
people. No claim of anything "Russian" can change those facts.
But, But, But
It is OK when the US of A ( via NED, USAID aka CIA covert ops) does it in Iran, some African
countries, South American and even in Western Europe circa the '60's, to elect puppets
Clinton won the election. Trump winning the Electoral College doesn't change that. If anybody
has been repudiated by popular vote, it is Trump. It wasn't a huge win because the Democratic
Party platform of how great the economy is is not going to win big for the good and simply
reason it's BS. And black voters weren't going to turn out for a white candidate. If winning
the election is a moral endorsement and losing is conviction of sin, then it is Clinton who
was the angel and Trump who was the devil in the judgment of the American people. Seeing
Clinton supporters as demons serving evil just means you hate the American people.
Either the Trumpists are getting exactly what they wanted, which exposes them as shameful.
Or they got blindly picked the biggest liar because, stupid. It's a lose/lose situation.
Since the Electoral College has made the election moot, what is the point of savaging Clinton
except a desperate effort to apologize for Trump?
Russia is for and against Trump, and is thus destroying American democracy! We have
always been at war with Eurasia! Freedom is slavery!
The dangerous projection from the US elites where anyone and anything can be turned
into something "evil" through the mere suggestion of any connection to Russia is no longer
shocking--but that makes it no less disturbing and insidious.
if the Dems wanted to campaign for the NEXT election rather than the LAST one, they could try
opposing Trump on an actual issue... but I don't see Clinton doing squat for Puerto Rico, EPA
standards, Black Lives, health care, Yemen, education, etc. The truth is, she and her party
don't oppose Trump on anything except who won the last election and which country to threaten
next.
I stopped listening to Amy Goodman over a year ago when I got sick of hearing nothing but
this partisan BS, though once in a while I turn it on for a few minutes, and Goodman is STILL
going on and on about Trump v Clinton! but today I got to hear Julian Assange tell her off,
so it was worth it.
b you are right to continue to focus on this issue. The Russia hysteria is beginning to
burn itself out. However the msn and the Democrats are now beginning to focus on Google,
Twitter and Facebook instead. Hillary last week gave a talk at Stanford calling for those
companies to censure false news reports. If her plan was put into effect one of its targets
would obviously be MoA along with hundreds of other outlets on both the left and the right
that challenge the usual deep state "news" promoted by the mainstream news monopolies.
Johnson #2. You obviously do not understand the US constitution. It was crafted to
distribute political power to all of the States, not to just those with the largest
populations. That was done deliberately and carefully in order to get the 13 former colonies
to agree to joining a united states. That is why we have the electoral college and why each
of the states have exactly two US senators irrespective of their population. So you want to
abolish the electoral college? Well then change the US constitution. Of course keep in mind
that the constitution has a rule for that process too -- it requires that 2/3 of the states
agree. Good luck with trying that! Well you loyal Hillary sycophants should just go back and
continue to cry in your beers like the pathetic losers that you all are.
The 2016 election, as with every federal election since at least 2000, was rigged.
Identifying all of the ways in which it was rigged is still open to debate, but we
know for sure that during the primary the DNC manipulated the schedule for "Super Tuesday" so
as to pad Clinton's lead with meaningless red states which would never turn out for her in
the general, that numerous states also executed suspect purges of their voter roles in
precincts leaning heavily toward Bernie Sanders, and that Clinton fraudulently secured the
electoral votes of some 400 so-called "super delegates" in order to create the illusion she
had popular support.
Furthermore, we know that the DNC itself promoted Trump because they wrongly believed
that he would be easier to beat in the general election. If anyone really adulterated our
democracy during this election, it was the DNC and, as usual, the corporate media apparatus.
But as with any large-scale CYA operation, the first order of business is to distract
attention away from the domestic perpetrators by hyping up an external threat and projecting
all manner of crimes to this shadowy enemy.
It's been the same tired song and dance in this country since forever, and I don't think
it'll ever change, especially not with almost universal control of the government, media,
finance, and industry by the money-printing fifth column.
If one looks at the recent history of which bills pass in congress, and how close the
votes lie, it is very easy to see the BIG LIE that these people represent anything other than
the corporate interests that pay them the most money.
The 'differences' they postulate and promulgate across media are of things
inconsequential, or of things that can never be wholly resolved with laws and regulations.
When important things arise, they are locked away in committee or alleged 'deadlock'. What
bills do pass are always, not sometimes, but always those that enrich their own pockets in
some way.
Those that believe in either cause, Democrat or Republican, are avoiding the truth staring
them in the face. They prefer the old reality we lived in where news could be controlled via
5 or 6 media outlets. They prefer The Matrix to the reality of where we exist today.
The truth is slowly oozing out, even as these parasitic creatures shovel and shove it back
under rocks and into overflowing waste bins. The result of this is apathy in extremis. This
will continue until a disaster or collapse of some part of the existing system forces people
to act for change.
Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Hillary was the same, and I fully expect the next
bunch of politicians to show even more stark symptoms. To expect the MSM to do other than
purvey the lies and obfuscate and distract is simply an illogical and fallacious expectation
- an expectation that money will never allow to be met.
This entire Russiagate thing is a distraction, canard, red herring - pick your noun
for falsity. It's purpose is to obfuscate other things the corporations and governments are
doing elsewhere. Caveat emptor
Last week saw the Senate Intelligence Committee going after Russia's influence in the "free
market places of ideas": Twitter, Facebook, etc. Senators fulminated over Twitter's failure to
appreciate the magnitude of the danger of Russia's interference in free elections. Cartoonists
lampooned Russia with caricatures of the famous Russian military parades showing the Facebook
and Twitter logos as displays in the parade along with tanks and missiles.
Suddenly the Senate was all atwitter over, well, Twitter. Who's feeding this sudden
awareness?
The recently created Alliance for Securing Democracy, housed (at least for now) at the
German Marshall Fund--USA is one of the core anti-Putin, anti-Russia operations that merits
keeping an eye on, especially as it impacts Congressional hearings, resolutions, and media.
It's an alliance of hard core neo-cons who were in the thick of promoting the 2003 Iraq war and
the "axis of evil" attacks on Iran-Iraq-North Korea during Bush 43 administration, with the
hillary-cons.
They're determined to turn up the heat against Moscow, not just in the United States, but to
spread the Cold War mania to Europe through its GMF network.
For now, the Alliance's money seems to be limited, but it is a clear move to migrate the
"Never Trump" Republicans into alliance with the Democratic Party, even further polluting and
destroying that party on the foreign policy front.
With a network of some 2 dozen operatives in the USA and Europe (including former Assistant
Secretary of Defense under Obama, Derek Chollet) the Alliance for Securing Democray blog is
churning out steady stream of articles about Russian interference in elections (including big
focus on the latest German elections) and demanding that Congress take action to further
investigate/stop Russian interference in said elections. They claim to be monitoring 600
Russian twitter accounts that they think are threatening democracy.
A significant part of the apparatus comes from the group, Foreign Policy Initiative which
went belly up in August, 2017, when it ceased operations. According to The Nation, FPI's demise
was largely due to the dropping off of funds in 2017 after the Trump election. The FPI was led
by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. These "never Trump'ers" were apparently an albatross after
the 2016 elections for some Republican and conservative deep pockets who always want to keep a
path open to the White House, no matter who they preferred.
Now Kristol has a new home on the Advisory Board of the Alliance for Securing Democracy
along with Michael Chertoff, and the anti-Putin ex-Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. Also
on the Board is Jake Sullivan, a top Hillary operative at the State Dept. Chertoff recently
landed a Wall Street Journal article on September 6 th , headlined, Congress Can
Help Prevent Election Hacking. I expect there will be a lot of Congressional action on this
front if the "Alliance for Securing Democracy" has its way.
Securing democracy? The crowd that brought us Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011?
Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald did an impressive first expose of this outfit in
July of this year, identifying the alliance between the war party neo-cons and the Democratic
Party, but there's a lot more to watch in its continuing operations to promote its Cold War
agenda, especially in Congress.
these neo con bloodsuckers are becoming irrelevant.. sure, they continue to suck on the blood
of a number of countries, but it is going to come to an end. if fact, it looks like the end
is in motion at present.. they want their war where-ever, and the corporations are all in tow
on this.. meanwhile ordinary people can see it for what it is..
i saw an article in fox news from kagan.. what was interesting were the comments in
response to his drivel... it gave me hope that people who are crazy enough to even read
something on fox news, can see bullshit when they see it and are willing to call it as such..
people aren't beholden to the western msm as much as some would like to think..
How can ordinary people, like me, be informed and make sound decisions? Common sense with a
strong bu****t meter helps. But there's so much going on and cross currents.
- Personally I don't think there has ever been a 'reset'.
It's the same as it ever was - they are still there operating in plain sight & pulling
the strings & levers of power in both the US Senate & Congress, of course the
influence of the AIPAC 'bloc' cannot be overlooked.
HRC was their candidate, as was BHO, as was Bush the younger, as was WJC et al.
PNAC is alive & well, the plan is still to destroy any nation which can independently
produce/supply hydrocarbons outside of the control of the US/Saudi hydrocarbon cartel, or act
as a third party transit corridor to China or Europe.
These nations typically fall foul of 'coloured revolutions', or ethinc minorities within
them - normally Sunni Muslims suddenly become the victims of 'ethnic cleansing' by State Govt
forces, no proof of this (pictures, moving images etc is ever provided by the MSM). The issue
is presented to the world as an 'uman rights issue. Often local Sunni extremists (sometime in
neighbouring states) then wage 'Jihad' & thus the state in question is totally destroyed
& 'Balkanised in the process.
Coupled with this is the ongoing operation to isolate Russian geopolitical & economic
influence over Festung Europa whilst drawing an ever more 'Balkanized 'Europa' into more
reliance on US influenced sources of hydrocarbons.
Simultaneous to this is the encirclement of Russia on 3 sides with THAAD style weapons
& conventional military forces to create a preemptive Nuclear/Conventional Strike
Scenario a reality.
In the Asia Pacific region its also a similar plan directed against China.
All of this is directly linked to maintaining the economic hegemony of the US 'Empire'
into the 21st Century.
Its not that simple to work out or follow.
Just my vacant ramblings this fine Monday morning 'downunder' feel free to rip it apart as
you wish.
Myanmar - shaping up to become a new hydrocarbon overland transit route from the Gulf for
China (avoiding the Malacca Straights maritime chokepoint) in exchange for an invitation into
the OBOR Project - Well it was until -
All of a sudden the Royhingas have been murdered en masse & driven into exile into
neighbouring Bangladesh (incidentally has anybody actually seen ANY pictorial moving footage
evidence of ANY of this?)
Bangladesh ... where the 'jihad' to avenge the Royhinga pogrom will be launched into
Myanmar ... has just 'accepted' an offer from the Kingdom of Saudi to construct hundreds of
new Mosques & Madrassas ... the perfect breeding ground to hatch a new generation of
Jihadis in SE Asia. Bangladesh will be in a perfect geographic position to threaten
neighbouring Indian provinces too. India has the largest Muslim population outside of the
Muslim world. There several million Bangladeshi migrant workers inside The Gulf states
working for a pittance ... who knows what some of them are up too.
Catlonia ... is/was setting itself up as a major LNG entry point into the EU from North
Africa ... primarily Algeria, since the predicted US 'Shale Boom' has not actually
materialised in sufficient volume to 'wean' the EU away from Russian Gas supplies.
Syria & now the likely formation of this quasi Kurdish state straddling the Shia
Crescent ... it really IS all about the Gas ... how can the Syrian state access its
hydrocarbons & move them abroad to the foreign market if somebody else has been
encouraged to create a quasi state right on top of them?
The Phillipines ... the southern half of the Island chain is predominantly Muslim &
since Duterte began making friendly overtures to regional players i.e. China they now have a
full blown 'insurgency' in the south despite plenty of US Military hardware in the very local
region (or is id direcly BECAUSE of the proximity of US Military forces?).
Nah. You couldn't've, because you were running on empty why you started your screed.
>>>The Phillipines ... the southern half of the Island chain is predominantly
Muslim & since Duterte began making friendly overtures to regional players i.e. China
they now have a full blown 'insurgency' in the south ...
A) Mindanao is the locus of the insurgency, and it has been that way ever since Spain
annexed it into its "The Philippines" administrative region.
B) The Muslim population of Mindanao is hardly the "southern half" of the Philippines; at
best, they are the "Southern sixteenth."
C) The Muslim portion of the "Southern Half of the Island Chain" makes up a total of about
6% of the total population of the Philippines. How you jump from there to "the southern half
of the Island chain is predominantly Muslim" is beyond me. That's simply factually false.
D) Duterte's overtures towards China have been overwhelmingly supported by the local
population, a vast number of whom have relatives who are overseas laborers working in
Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Canton/Guangdong, etc. In fact, the local Muslims in Mindanao
were trained by the US, and those currently financed by the Saudis (and, in the 70s, trained
by the U.S.) are staunchly opposed to Duterte's campaign to open up the Philippines to
Chinese investment.
Long-story-short: you're wrong on pretty much everything I am in a position to criticize
you on, and I suspect the rest of your screed can be similarly debunked.
Yep, the usual economic determinism mumbo jumbo from this guy, an epidemic in amateur and
professional poli sci circles conducting analysis on US geopolitical actions since 2003. Cast
aside the wide scope of history into the dustbin and focus on the US as some omnipotent robot
machine that runs on plundered oil. If the Colonel is reading this, what got me hooked on SST
was a comment of his back in 2014 in which he shot down that economic determinism crap as it
related to Iraq
It is just beyond belief that the majority of these clowns continue to be treated as if they
have a shred of credibility left or that their ideas carry ANY weight when it comes to their
outrageously incompetent foreign policy decisions/actions. That their ideological ideas have
any value at all, particularly when there has been no admission of a mistake or a
reorientation of their ideas, is just astounding. To be wrong so repeatedly and so publicly
should have engendered a least some, however small, sense of shame or humility.
On the other hand, it says something about our polity, too, that we continue to tolerate
this bullshit.
'On the other hand, it says something about our polity, too, that we continue to tolerate
this bullshit.'
absolutely. that these clowns, along with the various members of the pundit class
(friedman, krugman) who, after being repeatedly wrong about any number of things, continue to
be provided their bully pulpits tells you all you really need to know...
Every time I read about William Kristol's latest career move I am reminded of those old
Hammer Horror movies with Christopher Lee.
The dude comes to a grisly end in every movie, yet there he is in the next one, back from
the grave and - inevitably - none the wiser for the experience.
Ol' Dracula never once stops to think: Ya' know what, these always end badly. Maybe I
should sit this one out?
I just finished Simon Montefiore's two books on Stalin (Young Stalin and The Court of the Red
Czar).
With every passing day, the Neo-Cons and their fellow travelers are introducing the Soviet
method into American politics: Denunciations, Conspiracies, and the Never-Ending Search for
Wreckers.
Jacob Heilbrunn, via, I know, I know, the NYT. But, Heilbrunn, JULY 5, 2014
WASHINGTON -- AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative
movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama,
not the movement's interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era
Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.
Does anyone remember the curious renaissance of the neocons? Quite a time before the
election officially started or heated up?
Iraq, looked at in hindsight with the appropriate and needed distance in time, may not
have been that wrong after all? At least once there was someone else to blame? The
appropriate public period of repentance seemed to be over. New servants available, that might
escape the probling public eye?
Now the Americans may not have chosen the right "cherry blossom king" (Tyler) in their
opinion, or backed the right horse in the race. But does that matter? Strictly, hadn't the
winner delivered the new meme variant quite dutifully?
One has to keep open to twists of fate, seize the day, I would assume Trump knows that
too. Let's see. ...
******
Yes, now I remember a tale in Boccaccio's The Decameron, Sixth Day, Tenth Tale, Friar
Cipolla and a Feather of the Angel Gabriel. Which might fit. One of my favorites really.
I just finished Simon Montefiore's two books on Stalin (Young Stalin and The Court of the
Red Czar).
Judging by the "level" of Western historic narrative (granted with some notable
exceptions) on Russian/Soviet history of the 20th Century, I would be very cautious when
reading anything from Great Britain, especially from people with Montefiore's background. Not
to mention people who praise him--from WSJ, NYT etc. Western awareness of actual, real
Russian history is extremely low.
This is the first I've heard of the German Marshall Fund other than on The Ministry of
Information, I mean NPR, they are occasionally mentioned as providing money for some of the
propaganda uh, programming. I thought it was a fund to thank us for lending Les Boches a
helping hand after we were done bombing them to smithereens.
100% with you my rational thinking brother. I have another post here somewhere, Facebook
excecs had to be asked 3 times before they "found" these alleged Russian election changing
ads- just writing that makes me laugh- and stated that approximately 56% of these ads only
ran after the election. I mean we no those evil Russians are ultra cunning and highly
sophisticated but even so that takes some doing.
And the NSA, GCHQ, CIA does not have trolls apparently despite their massive budgets? Bear in
mind lefty news outlets are favourite covers for western security services. An example of
this is Kim Philby who while ostensibly working for MI6 was posted to the middle east working
for the Sunday edition. You know before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed the wall to
wall anti-Russian propaganda and the extremely close relationship between the Clinton
campaign and the US media indicates the trolls are running mainstream media in the US and the
UK.
It's the sense of entitlement that gets me, candidates throw as much questionable campaign
contributions at an election (such as Singer) and believe the electorate has a duty to vote
for them, and if the dont then the it must of been because of the opposition corruption and
the stupidity of the lower orders rather than incompetence or policy failure such as
representing wall St. rather than main St. on their part.
I'll do that English course when I have time, at the moment - and for the foreseeable- future
I'm flat out ridiculing the Russia-gate nonsense and the fools who are eager to champion any
old nonsense, no matter how ludicrous and continue to do so even when it is comprehensively
demolished.
There is tonnes of more proof that refugee numbers in Europe and the illegal bombing of Libya
and arming of 'rebels' in Syria are connected, yet everyone avoids that question.
There is also video proof that McCain and Nuland had incited the violent overthrow of the
elected government in Ukraine a few years ago. Before accusing me of being a Russian troll, I
am Hungarian.
Facebook spending by "russia" $100,000, unclear that was russian government.
Presidential salary of Bill Clinton $400,000/year. Clinton's at start had little net worth
according to them, now they have estimated net worth of $110 million+, much of it comes from
speeches, including to groups in places like Saudi Arabia.
Clinton foundation charity received donations from foreign governments and individuals,
including millions from some in saudi arabia. Not possible to see exact amounts.
US spending in ukraine over 20 years according to politfacts.com: About $2.4 billion went
to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border
security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement
interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing
justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic
growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million).... of course not all money
by CIA may be disclosed here.
I suspect Russia, US, and many other countries do spend on influencing other countries,
small potatoes though compared to how much Hillary and Trump spent, and those hundreds of
millions of dollars given to Hillary and Trump were probably partially to influence/bribe
them for later government decisions.
Are you not embarrassed writing this?
McCarthy is dead, the 50s are over, the Soviet Union no longer exists, The Billion Dollar
Brain and Dr Strangelove was not advice on how to run a successful US foreign policy, nobody
believes this nonsense anymore.
Quite honestly it is articles like this make me wish the Guardian would hurry up and go
bankrupt, although I hope your more reputable Journalists (such as Larry Elliot) continue
their journalism in another form. You are dragging a paper with a proud history from
Manchester radicalism into the mud and besmirching real journalists trying to carry out real
journalism.
To quote another 'article' in the Guardian (I use the word loosely) that does not have
comments "Russian operatives spent thousands of dollars on Google ads, source claims". Really
$1000s of Dollars, there are pet food ad campaigns that spend more than this.
Is the Guardian world news just run out of somebody else's office?
Yes, lets follow the money, using facts who made campaign contributions to the Democratic
and Republican party.
Yes, there is a conspiracy all right, it's the old one of the plutocrats conspiring
against the poor. To ensure their man or woman would represent wall street not the electorate
such as by ensuring Sanders was blocked by the super delegates. Then trying to ensure the
more finance friendly candidate became president, such as by google working closely with the
Clinton campaign. And no this is not misogyny as Bill Clinton was Americas worst domestic
president in history. 3 strikes and you're out, workfare mass incarceration of black people,
deregulation of finance. George W gets the crown as worst US president in foreign affairs due
to Iraq.
And the Russians according to evidence free speculation spent $1000s and were successful?
You are aware that $1.4bn is larger than $1000s? The US are obviously not very good at
advertising or capatalism or democracy, and if you want a cost-effective ad campaign go to
Russia, as nobody in history has run such a cost effective ad campaign where 1000s can be
more effective than Bns.
Quite frankly I am insulted this article is being presented in what used to be a reputable
newspaper.
For a good laugh go to Consotiumnews. com, read the article headed The mystery of the
Russiagate puppies. There is a lot there but essentially Clinton's desperate losers would
have us believe that a page set up for puppy lovers was Trojan horse to start slipping in
anti Clinton stuff. Those evil evil Rooskies, is there no end to their perfidy! puppies! is
nothing sacred?! A line that got a laugh for me is:' if some fact, like the puppies page
doesn't seem to fit the sinister conspiracy theory you simply pound it into place until it
does
If we can only fully understand something by following the money Diana, why does your
organisation, the Center for American Progress Action Fund - which Politico says 'openly runs
political advocacy campaigns, and plays a central role in the Democratic Party's
infrastructure' - refuse to disclose who its donors are?
There's a mountain of pig flop, most of the alleged "evidence" has collapsed under relatively
mild scrutiny. Remember the "hacked" voting machines and electric utility computer system?
not only not the evil Russians, just didn't happen at all and there are other tissue thin
bits of "evidence". No convincing any of Clinton's sore loser bleaters of course but I assume
you are aware that 25% of the alleged Russian ads were not viewed by anyone and that many
were not run til AFTER the election. Is there no end to those devilish Rooskies that they can
impact an election result AFTERWARDS!
It wasn't the entire US intelligence community - it was hand picked representatives from four
agencies. By the way, how are you going with all those weapons of mass destruction that the
entire US intelligence community was so sure of?
Let me get this straight. The USA, which holds the modern record for interfering in other
people's elections, for engineering coups, for doing dodgy deals with cocaine and heroin
merchants to fund death squads, which BOASTED (on the front cover of Time no less) of fixing
the 1996 election in Russia, has now got it's tits in a tangle because some maybe, might be,
could possibly be if you hold them edge on against a red light, Russians bought some Facebook
ads. Seriously?
Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad
In previous elections China has been linked to helping Democrats I don't see anyone
complaining, perhaps because the Democrats won. The USA, under a Democratic Preisdent spent
nearly $100 million dollars on an attempt to affect the election of an ally Israel in a vain
attempt to get rid of Netanyahu as Prime Minister. Welcome to politics.
> So, it's not Facebook's problem that they are aiding and abetting treason?
So, if the let's say an entity connected to the US government pays for an article/ advert
that could be linked to some protests or a controversial issue in a foreign country, then the
entity who sold the media space is guilty of treason?
Be careful what you wish for.
The reason you don't even see how wrong you points to the fact that the US is a
semi-totalitarian state already.
So wait, I'm trying to follow the logic of continuing to beat the Russia drum after it's so
clearly jumped the shark. Let me see if I understand...
What you're now telling me is that Clinton and her cadre of policy wonks and election
experts had the entire media behind them (including the owners of Google, Facebook, Twitter,
etc.) and spent $1,200,000,000 to win the election.
Nevertheless, they still lost against *Donald Trump*. ...Because...because the Russians
"hacked the election" with $150,000 and a few online trolls. Is this what it's come to? Say
it ain't so.
Also, why isn't the actual content of these election-changing ads being disclosed? What
did they say? What propaganda did "The Russians" use that was so effective on the American
public?
I mean, did "The Russians" promote any ideas that were actually *more* offensive than what
the Guardian publishes on a daily basis? I'd like to see the Russian identity politics ads to
compare...
The only trolls are the ones claiming that unproven allegations of Russians buying a handful
of ads on facebook are somehow more important than the fact that both our political parties
are owned and operated by private corporate interests.
> Only through this method can we fully understand the Russian corporate hydra behind the
ad buys
Lol. I am here with my popcorn to be entertained. Bring it on.
American politicians spend billions on their campaigns , but, sure, facebook has to
investigate those few allegedly Russian linked ads. They are just a drop in a sea of
political propagandizing and manipulation that goes on daily.
Also, how does this align with the freedom of speech? The way I look at it - as long as
information is truthful, it doesn't matter what source it is coming from, friendly or
unfriendly. Going after the source just because you don't like what being said seems to be
the old method of killing the messenger.
And who is the author of this article? "Diana Pilipenko is a principal investigator for
the Moscow Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund."
It figures. Someone who works for whatever "Center for American Progress Action Fund" is.
She is basically a lobbyist.
Whats truly laughable is this whole "was Russia involved" witch-hunt particularly in light of
all the US involvement in swinging Latin American elections etc for DECADES! We are basically
encouraging the people who live in glass houses to throw as many stones as possible and get
away with it!
Much as I don't like Trump that whole "was Russia involved in the Hillary-wikileaks" was
also purely a diversionary tactic. Don't talk about the content talk about who might have
provided it. Personally I don't care whether it was North Korea who dug it up, what should
have been THE story was the appalling corrupt stuff that was in those shocking leaks, and it
surely would have been front-page news for months had the target been Sanders or Trump and
not Wall Streets chosen favourite! IMHO we the public are being taken for mugs!
During the Cold War you had "Team B" looking for non-existent nefarious Russian schemes. It
was staffed by the now infamous Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
At least they looked into matters of import such as nuclear missiles and submarines, this
is more like "Team Z".
Ironically the people devoting the most effort to investigating Russiagate are
Wolofowitz/Rumsfeld's brothers in arms from the Iraq days, like Bill Kristol.
The FSB chief and Putin must be having a right laugh. Western journos who are still sore over
HRC losing the American Presidential Election are making for the best unpaid shills to extol
Russian intelligence and political power.
It seems to me that pundits like the one that wrote this risible article are doing far more
to promote KGB and Russian propaganda around the world and in the West than the Russians
themselves, through their screaming of "BIG BAD RUSSIAN BEAR!!!!!" from every soap box they
can find.
Putin should invite them to the Kremlin and decorate them for service to the Motherland.
Even CIA couldn't dream of such mythologising by the mass media.
"Some have argued that $150,000 is an insignificant fraction of the total spent on political
ads in 2016 ..."
0.00153% to be exact. Same proportion of total voters who voted for anybody would be 2000
people. Or 0.115 cents per voter. Yeah, this is a big news story.
I cannot resist another analogy. A Super Bowl commercial (and we all know what big fans of
the NFL the Left is) goes for $5 million per 30 seconds. The amount mentioned in this article
would buy a 900 millisecond ad (that's 0.9 seconds for those who missed it). Need some good
subliminal flash advertising to get your money's worth.
Let me know when the investigation reveals that the $150,000 spent on Facebook ads by the
Russians starts to be significant compared to the $9.8 billion spent on the campaign adverts.
Clinton vastly outspent Trump and still lost because she was a deplorable candidate.
Some have argued that $150,000 is an insignificant fraction of the total spent on
political ads
And they would be correct. Out of the $7 billion or so spent on the American elections,
it's a piddling amount. However, you are clinging to it for dear life because, almost a year
on, you can't accept that Clinton was a horrible candidate, so much so that even someone as
obscene as Trump could beat her (and yes I know she got more votes thank you very much).
You're really coming across as desperate now. Not a good look.
Most of these ads look more like click bait than any kind active measures campaign. As usual,
there is no evidence that the ads are in anyway connected to the Russian government. Even if
they were, $150,000 worth of ads are insignificant in an election where over $1billion was
spent on digital advertising. American elites should spend more time pondering how their
policy failures contributed to Trump's election and less chasing the chimera of Russian
interference.
This whole Russian meddling is getting more and more absurd. Clinton spent billions on
advertising and lost. Some supposed Russian investors spent thousands on puppy photo sites as
part of a cunning plan to suck Americans in. Russia is behind black lives matter, Russia is
behind taking the knee at american football matches, Russia is behind the Catalan referendum,
Russia is behind Brexit, Russia is probably behind the Dove advert. And anyone who finds the
whole farrago of mudslinging at Russia is obviously a Putinbot from a troll farm somewhere in
St Petersburg. The lunatics have very definitely taken over the asylum in America.
Roy Greenslade wrote an excellent column today on fake news. The hysteria regarding Russian
involvement in US politics could well be a prime example of which Roy writes. The Nation, in
an article titled Russiagate Is More
Fiction Than Fact details exactly how this tale of innuendo, supposition but very little
evidence has been pushed. The Nation examines in detail the Facebook accusations, and
records:
Then there is Facebook's disclosure that fake accounts "likely operated out of Russia"
paid $100,000 for 3,000 ads starting in June 2015. The New York Times editorial board
described it as "further evidence of what amounted to unprecedented foreign invasion of
American democracy." A $100,000 Facebook ad buy seems unlikely to have had much impact in a
$6.8 billion election. According to Facebook, "the vast majority of ads didn't specifically
reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate" but rather
focused "on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological
spectrum -- touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun
rights." Facebook also says the majority of ads, 56 percent, were seen "after the
election." The ads have not been released publicly. But by all indications, if they were
used to try to elect Trump, their sponsors took a very curious route.
The ads are commonly described as "Russian disinformation," but in the most extensive
reporting on the story to date, The Washington Post adds multiple qualifiers in noting that
the ads "appear to have come from accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency,"
itself a Kremlin-linked firm (emphasis added).
The Post also reveals that an initial Facebook review of the suspected Russian accounts
found that they "had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren't working for
a foreign government." Furthermore, "the security team did not find clear evidence of
Russian disinformation or ad purchases by Russian-linked accounts." But Russiagate logic
requires a unique response to absent evidence: "The sophistication of the Russian tactics
caught Facebook off-guard."
Would it be too much to ask for actual evidence of Russian interference, rather than this
leap to conviction?
It was only a matter of time before Google and its subsidiaries (most notably
YouTube) would jump on the "Russia hacked the election" narrative concocted by
Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.
Executive Chairman of Alphabet, Inc., (Google's parent company), Eric Schmidt
was after all advising the Hillary Clinton campaign.
What took Schmidt and Google execs so long to join in on the never ending
litigation of the US presidential election, that Hillary lost almost one year ago?
Via The Daily Caller...
Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google's parent company
Alphabet, wanted to be "head outside advisor" to the Hillary
Clinton campaign, according to Clinton campaign chairman
John Podesta in an email released by WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks has continued to reveal Schmidt's cozy relationship with
the Clinton campaign. In a previously leaked email,
a memo showed that Schmidt was working directly with the Clinton
campaign on setting up various backend features to their website.
From accusations of Trump campaign collusion to Russian Facebook ad buys, the media has
substituted hype for evidence.
Since Election Day, the controversy over alleged Russian meddling and Trump campaign
collusion has consumed Washington and the national media. Yet nearly one year later there is
still no concrete evidence of its central allegations. There are claims by US intelligence
officials that the Russian government hacked e-mails and used social media to help elect Donald
Trump, but there has yet to be any corroboration. Although the oft-cited January intelligence
report "uses the strongest language and offers the most detailed assessment yet," The Atlantic
observed that "it does not or cannot provide evidence for its assertions." Noting the "absence
of any proof" and "hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government
engineered the election attack," The New York Times concluded that the intelligence community's
message "essentially amounts to 'trust us.'" That remains the case today.
The same holds for the question of collusion. Officials acknowledged to Reuters in May that
"they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the
communications reviewed so far." Well-placed critics of Trump -- including former DNI chief
James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Morrell, Representative Maxine Waters, and Senator
Dianne Feinstein -- concur to date.
Recognizing this absence of evidence helps examine what has been substituted in its place.
Shattered, the insider account of the Clinton campaign, reports that "in the days after the
election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss." Instead, one source
recounted, aides were ordered "to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way."
Within 24 hours of Clinton's concession speech, top officials gathered "to engineer the case
that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. Already, Russian hacking was the
centerpiece of the argument."
But the focus on Russia has utility far beyond the Clinton camp. It dovetails with elements
of state power that oppose Trump's call for improved relations with Moscow and who are willing
to deploy a familiar playbook of Cold War fearmongering to block any developments on that
front. The multiple investigations and anonymous leaks are also a tool to pacify an erratic
president whose anti-interventionist rhetoric -- by all indications, a ruse -- alarmed
foreign-policy elites during the campaign. Corporate media outlets driven by clicks and ratings
are inexorably drawn to the scandal. The public is presented with a real-life spy thriller,
which for some carries the added appeal of possibly undoing a reviled president and his
improbable victory.
These imperatives have incentivized a compromised set of journalistic and evidentiary
standards. In Russiagate, unverified claims are reported with little to no skepticism.
Comporting developments are cherry-picked and overhyped, while countervailing ones are
minimized or ignored. Front-page headlines advertise explosive and incriminating developments,
only to often be undermined by the article's content, or retracted entirely. Qualified language
-- likely, suspected, apparent -- appears next to "Russians" to account for the absence of
concrete links. As a result, Russiagate has enlarged into a storm of innuendo that engulfs
issues far beyond its original scope.
The latest two stories about alleged Trump campaign collusion were initially received as
smoking guns. But upon further examination, they may actually undermine that narrative. One was
news that Trump had signed a non-binding letter of intent to license his name for a proposed
building in Moscow as he ran for the White House. Russian-born developer Felix Sater predicted
to Trump lawyer Michael Cohen that the deal would help Trump win the presidency. "I will get
Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected," Sater wrote, believing that voters would
be impressed that Trump could make a real-estate deal with the United States' "most difficult
adversary." The New York Times describes the outcome:
There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email
suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr.
Putin's spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which
had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov's direct email, and instead wrote
to a general inbox for press inquiries.
The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later.
Peskov has confirmed he ended up seeing the
e-mail from Cohen, but did not bother to respond. The story does raise a potential conflict of
interest: Trump pursued a Moscow deal as he praised Putin on the campaign trial. But it is hard
to see how a deal that never got off the ground is of more importance than actual deals Trump
made in places like Turkey, the Philippines, and the Persian Gulf. If anything, the story
should introduce skepticism into whether any collusion took place: The deal failed, and Trump's
lawyer did not even have an e-mail address for his Russian counterparts.
The revelation of Sater's e-mails to Cohen followed the earlier controversy of Rob Goldstone
offering Donald Trump Jr. incriminating information on Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and
its government's support for Mr. Trump." Goldstone's e-mail was more fruitful than Sater's in
that it yielded a meeting, albeit one that Trump Jr. claims he abandoned after 20 minutes.
Those who deem the Sater-Goldstone e-mail chains incriminating or even treasonous should be
reminded of their provenance: Sater is known as "
a canny operator and a colorful bullshitter " who has " launched
a host of crudely named websites -- including IAmAFaggot.com and VaginaBoy.com to attack a former business partner." Meanwhile,
Goldstone is a British tabloid journalist turned music publicist. One does not have to be an
intelligence expert to doubt that they are Kremlin cut-outs.
The indicted husband-and-wife team of former IT aides to Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz sat directly across from each other at the defendants' table in federal court Friday in
Washington, D.C., but refused to look at each other.
Even as they are co-defendants in a U.S. case, Imran Awan's own wife, Hina Alvi, has become
the latest person to accuse him of fraud, filing papers against him in Pakistani court,
according to Pakistani news channel ARY.
The couple were in U.S. court to face bank fraud charges related to sending money to
Pakistan around the time they learned they were under investigation for abuses related to their
work managing IT for members of Congress. Awan was arrested at Dulles Airport in July
attempting to board a flight to Pakistan.
Wasserman Schultz, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, and other House
Democrats have vigorously defended Awan, claiming the Capitol Police might be drumming up
charges
out of
Islamaphobia .
Alvi was arraigned Friday on four felony counts, and Awan, who has already been arraigned,
requested that his GPS monitoring bracelet be taken off -- citing the fact that his wife was in
America as the reason he was not a flight risk.
Yet the couple entered and left the court separately, have different lawyers, and Awan's
lawyer told the judge that the husband and wife are staying "in a one-bedroom apartment and
then also a house."
Pakistani legal papers published
by the news channel show Alvi recently accused Awan of illegally marrying another woman,
and of fraud. "My husband Imran Awan son of Muhammad Ashraf Awan, committed fraud along with
offence of polygamy," she charges in the papers.
Hina's U.S. lawyer, Nikki Lotze, did not dispute the account. "I don't see how that's
newsworthy," Lotze told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The Pakistani legal petition named as
the second wife is a woman who records show told Virginia police she felt like Awan was keeping
her "like a slave."
Awan, his wife and two brothers -- all previously on the payroll of House Democrats --
became subjects of a Capitol Police investigation last year after investigators concluded they
were submitting falsified invoices for equipment and
had transferred "massive" data off a House server. After he was banned from the House
network, Awan left a laptop with the username RepDWS in a Capitol Hill phone booth.
Although
The Washington Post has reported that investigators found that Awan and his relatives made
unauthorized access to a congressional server 5,400 times, Wasserman Schultz has said concern
about the matter was the
stuff of the "right-wing media circus fringe."
Awan and Alvi have been charged with bank fraud involving moving money to Pakistan, but they
have not been charged with crimes related to their work, and the other family members have not
been charged at all. Awan's attorney used Friday's hearing to argue that he "very strongly"
wanted to block prosecutors
from using evidence they found in the Capitol Hill phone booth.
The Pakistani legal motion filed by Alvi states: "A few months ago I got apprised of the
fact that my husband has contracted second marriage secretly, fraudulently and without my
consent with Mst. Sumaira Shehzadi Alias Sumaira Siddique Daughter of Muhammad Akram r/o
Township, Lahore. The second marriage of my husband is illegal, unlawful and without
justification."
"The court has recorded the testimonies of the applicant and other witnesses," the Pakistani
news outlet reported.
... ... ...
The Awan family had access to the full digital files of 45 House members and
their staffs, but Democrats have said they don't believe he would abuse that access, despite a
host of financial red flags, including financial ties to an
Iranian fugitive and money sent to a Pakistani police officer.
In a civil case this year, Awan's stepmother Samina Gilani accused Abid Awan, who was also
on the House payroll, of stealing a $50,000 life insurance policy, and said Awan used his
employment in Congress to intimidate people.
"Imran Awan introduces himself as someone from US Congress or someone from federal
agencies," she charged. He "threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police
[he] will do harm to me and my family members back in Pakistan and one of my cousins here in
Baltimore."
Additional reporting from Peter Alexander, Hallie Jackson and Vivian
Salama.
WASHINGTON -- John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, abruptly scrapped plans to travel
with President Donald Trump on Wednesday so he could try to contain his boss's fury and manage
the fallout from new revelations about tensions between the president and Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson, according to six senior administration officials.
Kelly summoned Tillerson, and their ally Defense Secretary James Mattis, to the White House,
where the three of them huddled to discuss a path forward, according to three administration
officials. The White House downplayed Kelly's decision to stay in Washington, saying he did so
to manage day-to-day operations.
Vice President Mike Pence, meanwhile, was fuming in Phoenix, where he was traveling, seven
officials told NBC News. He and Tillerson spoke on the phone before the secretary's public
appearance on Wednesday morning.
Pence was incensed upon learning from the NBC report that Tillerson's top spokesman had said
he once privately questioned the value of Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations. Officials said the spokesman, R.C. Hammond, fabricated an anecdote that Pence had
asked Tillerson in a meeting whether Haley, who is seen as a possible successor if Tillerson,
is helpful or harmful to the administration.
NBC reported Wednesday that Tillerson had threatened to resign in July after a series of
clashes with the president, at one point venting his frustrations among his colleagues by
calling the president a "moron," according to multiple senior administration officials who were
aware of the matter at the time.
Four senior administration officials said Trump first learned on Wednesday that Tillerson
had disparaged him after a July 20 national security meeting at the Pentagon. Trump vented to
Kelly Wednesday morning, leading Kelly to scrap plans to travel with the president to Las Vegas
to meet with victims and first responders in Sunday's mass shooting.
Trump was furious when he saw the NBC News report, which was published shortly before 6 a.m.
Wednesday. For the next two hours the president fumed inside the White House, venting to Kelly,
officials said. He left for Las Vegas shortly after 8 a.m., 20 minutes behind schedule. Tillerson scrambled to pull together a statement, while his spokesman publicly apologized
for his comments about Pence and Haley, saying he "spoke out of line about conversations I
wasn't privy to."
Tillerson delivered a statement praising Trump and insisting he never considered resigning,
but it's what he didn't say that further enraged Trump, officials said.
The secretary's refusal to deny that he had called the president a "moron" in his opening
statement and in his responses to questions from reporters stoked Trump's anger and widened the
rift between the two men, officials said. After watching the secretary's response Wednesday, one White House official said, "When
Tillerson didn't deny it, I assumed it was true." Hammond is seen by the White House, particularly Pence's office, as untrustworthy, officials
said. It's unclear if he will remain in his post, according to three administration
officials.
Pence was "very annoyed anyone would misrepresent anything he said, particularly in private
meetings," one White House official said. On Wednesday, this source said, White House officials spoke to State Department officials to
make it clear that Hammond's comment was "false" and needed to be corrected. The revelations followed Trump's frustrations over the weekend after Tillerson said the U.S.
would talk to North Korea.
State Department officials tried to reach Tillerson on his government aircraft during his
flight from Beijing to Japan, but they couldn't reach him, sources said. The secretary and his
team didn't want to issue a clarification, further stoking tensions with the White House, on
administration official said.
Trump took to Twitter, telling Tillerson not to waste his time trying to negotiate with the
North Korean regime.
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
"... These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org . ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by
CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from
being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an
enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that
role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating
with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think
the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and
Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles
for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington's plans to
invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea.
Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base
on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign
policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism.
This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there
also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing
Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia's
borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence
that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible
than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election
or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic
Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth .
"... Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards." ..."
"... In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that they are sophisticated and in the know. ..."
"... Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia are false. ..."
"... This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to military attack. ..."
"... What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes? ..."
"... I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. ..."
Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept exposes the fake news put out by the US Department of
Homeland Security (an euphemistic name for a Big Brother operation that spies on US citizens) that
Russia hacked 21 US state elections, news that was instantly spread around the world by the presstitute
media. The propagandists running Homeland Security were contradicted by the state governments, forcing
Homeland Security to retract its fake news claims.
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/
The unasked/unanswered question is why did Homeland Security put out a FAKE NEWS story?
Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see
Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious
dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says
is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia.
Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard
for evidentiary standards."
In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for
the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans
sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that
they are sophisticated and in the know.
What Greenwald doesn't address is the effect of the massive amount of fake news on Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea. Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia
are false. So why is Washington making false accusations against Russia?
This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false
accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime
criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North
Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to
military attack.
Iran and North Korea cannot attack the US and its European vassals, but Russia and China can.
I have written about the Operational Command of the Russian armed forces conclusion that Washington
is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. Instead of reassuring the Russians that no such
planning is in the works, Washington has instead pushed further the fake news Russiagate story with
the false report that Russia had hacked the elections of 21 states.
What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly
filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder
as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because
the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about
the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream
of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes?
If you were the Russian government, would you conclude that your country was the next to
be attacked militarily by Washington? If you were the Russian government, you would know that Washington/NATO
cannot possibly attack Russia except by surprise nuclear strike. Knowing this, if you were the Russian
government, would you sit there and wait on the strike? Imagine yourself the Russian government listening
day in, day out, to endless wild improbable charges against Russia. What can Russia possibly conclude
other than this is preparation of Western peoples for a nuclear attack on Russia?
Russia is not going to be hung like Saddan Hussein or murdered like Gaddafi.
I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most
extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. The crazed morons in Washington are risking the
life of the planet. The presstitutes are worse than the whores that they are. They never question
the path to war; they only amplify it. Washington's craven, cowardly, moronic vassal states in UK,
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, and the rest of the EU/NATO idiots are, by
their cooperation with Washington, begging for their own destruction.
Nowhere in the West is there a sign of intelligence.
Will Washington follow Adolf Hitler's folly and march into Russia?
"... For the next three years, the court papers claim, Deripaska tried to get Manafort to provide accounting reports of what he had done with the money, but received nothing. "The Petitioner has not been provided with these audit reports nor is it aware whether any further audits were performed in respect of the Partnership." There is no trace or sign in these records, or in the New York Times excerpts of the Cyprus cutout loan accounts, that any Ukrainian asset had been purchased. If Deripaska's court claim is to be believed, Manafort had legged it with the cash – Deripaska had been hustled. ..."
"... The years 2008 and 2009 turned out to go badly for Deripaska in the US, particularly as he had set his heart on a German and Russian Government-financed buyout of General Motors' Opel car division. ..."
The second half of 2008 was a very bad time for Deripaska, as the Russian aluminium and
other businesses on which he depended, collapsed into insolvency with accumulated debts at one
point of about $20 billion. Deripaska told the Cayman Island court: "By mid-summer 2008, there
were clear indications of the oncoming world financial crisis, and at this time the Petitioner
was the only limited partner in the Partnership which had made only one investment (BSC [Black
Sea Cable]). In September 2008 the Petitioner [Deripaska] informed the GP [Manafort] that it
was suspending further investment into the Partnership."
For the next three years, the court papers claim, Deripaska tried to get Manafort to provide
accounting reports of what he had done with the money, but received nothing. "The Petitioner
has not been provided with these audit reports nor is it aware whether any further audits were
performed in respect of the Partnership." There is no trace or sign in these records, or in the
New York Times excerpts of the Cyprus cutout loan accounts, that any Ukrainian asset had been
purchased. If Deripaska's court claim is to be believed, Manafort had legged it with the cash
– Deripaska had been hustled.
A few weeks ago Kurochkina refused to tell the New York Times whether Deripaska is
continuing to pursue Manafort's $18 million debt. That newspaper claimed "Mr. Deripaska appears
to have stopped pursuing his court action against Mr. Manafort and his former investment
partners, Rick Gates and Rick Davis, in late 2015." The newspaper reporters didn't ask, and
Kurochkina didn't explain, what services Manafort had invoiced Deripaska for which $7.3 million
was paid out. Noone has asked Deripaska whether he thinks Manafort kept the money for
himself.
The years 2008 and 2009 turned out to go badly for Deripaska in the US, particularly as he
had set his heart on a German and Russian Government-financed buyout of General Motors' Opel
car division. The lobbying in Washington which Deripaska paid for, as well his reason to
believe then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported his Opel deal, were reported
here . But Clinton, the US Treasury and other Obama Administration officials broke their
word, and cancelled the Opel sale. If Deripaska had been content to leave Manafort holding
$26,288,400 of the Russian oligarch's cash through the 2008 crisis and the General Motors
negotiations in 2009, his patience had run out by November 2009, when the cancellation of the
Opel sale became public.
On November 5, 2009, then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced
after his cabinet ministers had discussed the Opel deal, "it shows that our American partners
have a very original culture when dealing with counterparties. We will have to take into
account this style of dealing with partners in the future, though this scornful approach toward
partners mainly affects the Europeans, not us. GM did not warn anyone, did not speak to anyone
despite all the agreements reached and documents signed. Well, I think it is a good
lesson."
These days, according to the media leaks, US Government investigators of Manafort are
pursuing a different lesson. This is that Manafort took Deripaska's money for the purpose of
subverting the US presidential election of 2016. The court evidence indicates that Manafort was
paid for Ukrainian assets which didn't materialize, and kept the money for himself through a
period when the US government first decided to sell a multi-billion dollar part of
then-bankrupt General Motors to Derripaska, and then, quite suddenly, decided not to.
Considering the following, (follow the link) that stretch thingie starts making more and
more sense.
The lobbying in Washington which Deripaska paid for, as well his reason to believe then
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported his Opel deal, were
reported here . But Clinton, the US Treasury and other Obama Administration officials
broke their word, and cancelled the Opel sale.
From the linked article;
When Hillary Clinton (lead, left) was US Secretary of State in 2009, she proved she
could lie to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel; keep secret her hostility towards Russia
even in her secret staff emails; and take money in her back pocket for an $8 billion deal
between the US, Germany and Russia recommended by her subordinates. The record, recently
revealed in US investigations of Clinton's emails and donations to the Clinton Foundation,
shows why the Kremlin assessment of Clinton is hostile and blunt – Clinton invites
and takes bribes, but can't be relied on to keep her bargains
A lot of people remember being screw*d out of a $million, even 5 or 10 years after the
fact.
The way I read this post, and the embedded history of Hillary's double-cross of Deripaska,
is that there is an unstated agreement among our current ruling class, that it's ok to
double-cross and provoke Russia/Russians for profit, but not to make actual deals because
that would be collaboration at least, and maybe treason.
I thought the same thing. Does Manafort have stock in Blackwater or what? The blithe
narration of unmitigated corruption says all one needs to know of the times we live in.
US Congressman
says Julian Assange "has absolute proof" Russia did not meddle in US elections
(Video)
Julian
Assange can prove hacks were not by Russia with 100% certainty.
Last year's DNC hack that took over via the Gmail account of campaign chairman John Podesta
provided a clear example of how important added protections are, but many people don't take
advantage because they can seem complicated to setup. Just a few months many users were bombarded
with a Google Drive-hosted phishing attack, and that won't be the last one.
As US lawmakers demand social media companies show how their platforms were allegedly used
by Russia to meddle in the 2016 election, WikiLeaks co-founder tweeted emails that show
Facebook executives in direct communication with one candidate's team.
Beginning on October 7
last year, WikiLeaks published hundreds of emails from the private account of Hillary Clinton's
campaign chairman John Podesta. The daily drops continued for a couple days after the November
8 election.
On Thursday, as US media were speculating about "Russian" meddling on Twitter,
Facebook and Reddit, Julian Assange tweeted some of the Podesta emails with a reminder that the
social network's leading lights were Clinton fans.
The segment started off with Geist introducing the latest reporting on the topic:
GEIST: Twitter says it has shut down more than two-hundred accounts that were tied to the
same Russian operatives who bought political ads on Facebook. Of the 450 accounts released by
Facebook as part of its investigation, Twitter was able to match 22 of them to its own site.
The disclosure by Twitter followed a briefing by company officials to staffers of the Senate
and House Intel committees yesterday. Following that meeting, the top Democrat on the Senate
committee, Mark Warner, slammed Twitter for its presentation.
SEN. MARK WARNER [D-VA]: [playing clip] The presentation that the Twitter team made to the
Senate Intel staff today was deeply disappointing. The notion that their work was basically
derivative based upon accounts that Facebook had identified showed enormous lack of
understanding from the Twitter team of how serious this issue is, the threat it poses to
democratic institutions, and, again, begs many more questions than they offered.
(...)
GEIST: The top Democrat on the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff, also weighed in on
Twitters briefing to his committee, releasing a statement that read, in part: "... it is clear
that Twitter has significant forensic work to do to understand the depth and breadth of Russian
activity during the campaign. This additional analysis will require far more robust
investigation into how Russian actors used their platform as a part of their active measures
campaign..."
Without any perceptible degree of skepticism about the Democratic Congressmen's claims,
Geist then teed up Nicolle Wallace, host of the MSNBC afternoon show Deadline: White House , to
talk about social media and the 2016 election more generally:
GEIST: You do get the sense, Nicolle, that Facebook, Twitter, social media was totally
clueless about what was happening on their sites during the 2016 campaign.
WALLACE: It's worse than that [...]. The social media companies are sort of like the worst
stereotype of a Republican political organization. They're reactive, theyre opaque, they're
defensive, they are very slow to understand the value of transparency. They're totally lawyered
up, lobbied up. And they are as a culture, the hubris of thinking that they're all about the
public good, when if you take a low-tech analogy, its basically like someone got mugged in your
backyard and their position is: well, it's not our problem, I mean, we just bought the lot on
which the house was built, not our problem.
The MSM does not report news. They provide entertainment for their demographic base of
couch riding spectators. Controversy, salaciousness and division increase the amount of
eyeballs, which allow these channels of distraction to charge exorbitant fees to advertisers
who are selling crap most don't need or want. It's all just "chewing gum" for the eyes.
"This isn't new, this is the Kremlin playbook. They have been exacerbating racial tensions
in the US [for years]... "
So it's the Russians that have caused racial tensions in the U.S., who knew? Racial voting
patterns in this country are almost the same today as they were before the Civil War. In any
Presidential election, for instance, 95% of blacks vote Democrat, regardless of who is
running, and over 80% of Christian Fundamentalists vote Republican, regardless of who is
running.
During this last Presidential election, if you flipped the State of Virginia with the
State of Pennsylvania, the election turned on the Mason-Dixon line. Unless the Russians can
be blamed for the racism this nation was born into, it's probably absurd to blame today's
racial tensions on them.
"Black Lives Matter and targeting, specifically, ethnic groups [...] and allowing people
to target, not only for Russian influence, but also target housing ads, employment ads."
Shame on them for trying to get people to get a job!
How long until they declare antifa is a Russian sponsored terrorist org.? I know it is not
time yet but once the violence of antifa generates general rejection by the middle class due
to fear - perhaps then they will throw them under the bus. And use antifa as justification
for oppressive policies/laws.
Thinking about Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent really opened my eyes to what
democratization of the media could do. Why are we having this conversation about 2016, and
not 2008 or 2012? I have a number of theories about this. I think the endgame here is to
create a Great Firewall for major social media platforms to keep people from finding out
certain truths (I think you won't be hearing from Wikileaks, for example). It's a dark time,
and I'm sad we're here.
Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwn ... I don't do social media full stop.
So any government control mechanism actually fails and if anything with all the proactive
advertising, fake news and now mostly junk content I know people who are dumping it prefering
alternative forms of communication ... like talking to real people.
I never knew ... me dear old mum well retired now curses google and facebook with all the
shit they come out with.
Mwhahahahaha ... it's spreading.
To the point just refuse to talk to people who use social media, let them keep their
dumbed down universe to themselves.
MSNBC is a network of wackos. So are the ideas they promote as well as the usual suspects
they interview. No one takes this network or the nonsense they spew seriously.
Sure, lets invent another huge government bureaucracy in order to maintain the monopoly of
a dying, legacy media dinosaur !!!!
Through censorship no less
Its fucking both pathetic and laughable.... the MSM is a Dead Media Walking....
You think Bezos wanted to buy WaPo to enhance its journalistic character? No fucking
chance... he took it over in order to save a mouthpiece of the elite that was ready to go
TU..... for a huge Qid Pro Quo I might add ( to wit, you may recall that shortly after Bezos
took over WaPo, Amazon was suddenly given the ok to accept EBT, with not a peep of protest or
a question from Congress. So now, we have welfare queens ordering online and getting wildly
expensive Amazon Fresh deliveries IN THE FUCKING GHETTO.... ISNT THIS COUNTRY GREAT !!!!)
What cannot be controlled or co-opted by these fucks must somehow be "regulated" or
eliminated.
WELL FUCK THAT!!! Keep stacking pms, lead and brass
"... Is it possible that the left is being played? Is it possible that the media who almost exclusively report what the establishment wants are being told to report BS? Is it disinfo campaign aimed at ruining the lefts chances of coming back to power? I know the public can easily be made to have their collective heads explode over anything but are journalists that brainwashed too? I'm starting to see a birther parallel here. ouch. Is that ironic or what? ..."
"... The influence on the election from the Russians to me is absurd to the naked eye. Israel has far more influence on American elections through AIPAC. Saudi Arabia has influence through money Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have much more influence on American elections And the prime minister of Israel comes to our country and addresses Congress to criticize the presidents policy in Iran at the time – thats pretty outrageous. ..."
"... Our country is very much in the grip of a dictator: The dictator is money, the military-industrial-complex. ..."
"... This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is going to annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the majority of seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the presidency. ..."
"... It does not make an iota of difference which party is in power. The party of the People was in power, when Obama took office. Look what happened. They started more wars, finished off Libya as a Nation, started the destruction of Syria, started extermination in Yemen . . . . Obama set up more U.S. bases in Africa – the land of his ancestors to bring them back under control. And don't forget the Drone Wars of Obama. ..."
"... All this Russia Gate mess was started by Obama, and largely fueled by The Party of the People. If they come to power, they are going to double up on it. Dont we watch the likes of Adam Schiff On TV every day spitting out their lies and and hatred towards Russia! The party of Bill and Hillary are clamoring for more action – like setting up no Fly Zones – in Syria. They want to subjugate Russia. ..."
"... Mike K. in his post yesterday under Rise of New McCarthyism had this link to an interesting article on the Neocons. ..."
At some point, you would like to believe that this stuff is so over the top, it would be
self-defeating. Are there any accurate polls of what the general public thinks of all this?
If it weren't for the threat of a thermonuclear Armageddon, it would only mean more resources
wasted on the war party and less for social security, etc. Russia is not going anywhere, and
I believe is beyond our ability to harm it, unless said nuclear holocaust ensues. Our
attempts to isolate Russia are doomed to fail.
Sam F , September 28, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Yes, the charade is doomed to fail to persuade, let alone hurt Russia, but will succeed in
creating the foreign monster needed by tyrants to demand domestic power. In our modern witch
hunts we all know that there are no witches – the whole performance is a declaration of
tyranny over public information, a statement to the common man that he must follow his master
the mass media, he must avow that he is the slave of the rich, and pretend that the declared
enemy is his own. He must praise the flag betrayed by his masters the oligarchy.
hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 11:08 am
Is it possible that the left is being played? Is it possible that the media who almost
exclusively report what the establishment wants are being told to report BS? Is it disinfo campaign aimed at ruining the lefts chances of coming back to power?
I know the public can easily be made to have their collective heads explode over anything
but are journalists that brainwashed too? I'm starting to see a birther parallel here. ouch.
Is that ironic or what?
Abe , September 29, 2017 at 11:26 pm
During a discussion with The Nation concerning the documentary series The Putin
Interviews, first broadcast in June 2017, Academy Award winning film producer Oliver Stone
addressed the hacking allegations and questions of influence on the American election:
The influence on the election from the Russians to me is absurd to the naked eye. Israel
has far more influence on American elections through AIPAC. Saudi Arabia has influence
through money Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have much more influence on American
elections And the prime minister of Israel comes to our country and addresses Congress to
criticize the presidents policy in Iran at the time – thats pretty outrageous.
Our country is very much in the grip of a dictator: The dictator is money, the
military-industrial-complex. Its beyond absurd to have this kind of expenditure every year on
military.
If there is any comfort to be found in any of this, all this blaming Russia on everything
and anything is getting all to outrageous as each day goes by. In other words the MSM
overkill on this Russia-Gate silliness, is losing its credibility, with all this nonsense and
coverage saying so.
eole , September 29, 2017 at 6:34 am
I wish you were right. Unfortunately, here in Europe, there are still a lot of countries
which blindly follow whatever the USA think or do, particularly with NATO which would so like
to step by mistake of course across the Baltic and Polish borders.
I must say that I
admire
the strength of Putins nerves. How long will it last? Also there are elections next year, and
we can observe that Washington is arleady trying to plant seeds of revolution. I dont think
it'll work. According to Xavier Moreau a French political observer living in Moscow, Putin
enjoys a popularity that lots of foreign politicians would be envy!
Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:22 am
I wish eole, likeminded Europeans and us in the U.S. were to band together to protest, and
petition, our governments to stop with all this warring madness. From the Donbass, to Deir
Ezzor, and all the way across the globe to Seoul Korea, we the people for peace should stand
arm and arm to defy this ugly monster whos only goal is to marginalize us citizens with their
ultimate military strength towards having their ownership over all of the worlds precious
natural resources. All this to make a few bankers rich. Joe
mike k , September 28, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Money controls everything. ETHICS DOESNT STAND A CHANCE IN COMPETITION WITH MONEY.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ WELCOME TO THE WONDERLAND OF Capitalism, where you can have
anything you want, if only you have the MOOLA! Souls for sale here – CHEAP!
Just sign here in blood, and have we got a deal for you….
Leslie F , September 28, 2017 at 7:51 pm
The only poll I know about was an internal Democratic Party poll showing that rank and
file Democrats resented the incessant Russia did it mantra as not responsive to their
concerns. I don't remember whether people believed it or not but they definitely through it
was getting too much attention from Democratic leaders at the expense of more important
issues.
Joe Tedesky , September 28, 2017 at 9:23 pm
This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is going to
annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the majority of
seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the presidency. It
will serve the Democrates well, for allowing themselves for being used as a tool for the
Shadow Government.
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 4:07 am
Joe – This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is
going to annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the
majority of seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the
presidency.
It does not make an iota of difference which party is in power. The party of the People
was in power, when Obama took office. Look what happened. They started more wars, finished
off Libya as a Nation, started the destruction of Syria, started extermination in Yemen . . .
. Obama set up more U.S. bases in Africa – the land of his ancestors to bring them back
under control. And don't forget the Drone Wars of Obama.
All this Russia Gate mess was started by Obama, and largely fueled by The Party of the
People. If they come to power, they are going to double up on it. Dont we watch the likes of
Adam Schiff On TV every day spitting out their lies and and hatred towards Russia! The party
of Bill and Hillary are clamoring for more action – like setting up no Fly Zones
– in Syria. They want to subjugate Russia.
The way the things are in the country, of all the bad options available, Trump probably is
the best to have – he can not make the case for more wars effectively, like the slick
politician Obama did.
Mike K. in his post yesterday under Rise of New McCarthyism had this link to an
interesting article on the Neocons.
Dave you are right. The reason I mentioned the Democrates was because they were the last
party that I can recall who did once stand for the we the people. My memory also can recall
how even when at their best the Democrates weren't all that great to living up to their
overrated motto. So what I was referring too in many ways doesnt exist, and some would say
never did. These presidents we all find fault with, in my mind are only front people for our
Shadow Government (look up YouTube of Kevin Shipp). In fact watching Trump turn over his
staff, and his redo of his campaign promises, is like seeing the Shadow Government take over
in real time. You and I Dave are most definitely living inside of the matrix. Thanks Dave for
moving this conversation along in the right direction. Joe
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 11:53 am
Yes Joe. There was lot of good in that old Democratic Party of the 1960s and 70s –
my wife and I took part in the McGoverns campaign. And in those days, in old main street type
conservative Republicans, I found lot of good too. In fact, when I came to this country
during mid 1960s, the city council of Ann Arbor was Republican, and they were good people.
And now the city council of Ann Arbor is in Democratic Party hands – all Hillary
supporters, and Russia bashers too.
I wonder what they are teaching in these schools now. This is what this very effective
propaganda machine of this new age Edward Bernays is doing to the young minds and to the
public at large.
Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 12:24 pm
Dave you bring up the 1972 McGovern presidential run, and the way that all went down. I
quit voting after that all took a turn for the worst, and for the following next twenty years
I stayed away from the voting booth. That no doubt wasnt a smart way of dealing with my
disappointment, but at that time I thought it appropriate because I could see then that I
didnt necessarily agree with the majority of my fellow countrymen and woman. No big deal, I
just did what needed done to get my family food on the table. To be honest Dave, I still dont
know why I vote. Although you are right the Democrates arent in anyway much better than the
Republicans, and with that we all suffer. Joe
Laninya , September 28, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Quote: And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental
organizations if they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic
process no matter how sloppy the research or how absurd the findings.
Ha!ha! You know whats funny about this? Its that all the money poured into the NGOs in
Russia in the past quarter century that was intended to, not just meddle in, but to shape the
Russian political, social, and economic realities has, under Putins wise and delicate rule,
been squeezed into an ineffectual state of presence. And because their attempts on the ground
in real life have failed over there, a theatrical inversion of reality has to be created over
here.
Ah!ha!ha! This is SUCH an amazing movie. And, better when wearing 3-D glasses! Cant wait
to see how it ends.
Joe Tedesky , September 28, 2017 at 6:19 pm
Your right, Putin seems to out smart these clever American instigators every step of the
way. I will now take a knee for injustices committed against Blacks, and Native-Americans
(remember Dakota Access), and stay down on my knee a little while longer with the hope that
my beloved USA may come to its senses, and that my country will finally wise up.
laninya , September 29, 2017 at 12:44 am
Joe,
I appreciate your taking a knee for injustices committed against certain of those who
share this continent with us English-speaking peoples (who seem to have have claimed it as
our own), as I have long appreciated the tone and substance of your comments on this
site.
So, Im gonna quibble (in a friendly way) with you on the idea that Putin out smarts
American instigators at every step. Ive been spying on that guy for about three years, now,
and Id say its just that hes playing a different game. One the American players dont
understand, and dont believe even exists or maybe theyve heard rumours of such a game, but
they think its mythical.
See: our people -- yours and mine: your beloved USA and my Canada, heirs of the British
Empire -- our people make war for fun and profit. Always have done. We rule the waves, and
privateering is our game.
Putins people, on the other hand, have occupied the crossroads at the centre of the major
overland trade routes (north-south as well as east-west) since ancient times, and, due to the
geography and the demographics, have been fighting off invaders from all direction the whole
time. Its a whole different game.
And, its a game VV Putin takes seriously, cause he has no other choice. After perestroika,
after the Harvard boys [did] Russia ( ref: https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/
), that huge nation (11 time zones!) was on the brink of total collapse and dismemberment.
For the stability, security and prosperity of (what was left of) his people and the 1000-year
history of the nation, he just couldnt afford to make any mistakes or false steps.
For him and his team (Putin doesnt work alone by any stretch of the imagination), this
isnt a pissing contest. Its the life of their nation.
Whole different game.
I hope our countries wise up, too. Were really blowing it.
Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 1:46 am
There are two things here I see as interesting, and possibly crucial, laninya.
One, is the U.S. and Canada by the standards of a countrys age are fairly young. In fact
Russia got our countries beat by, probably would you say 4 fold? Anyway, our time at bat as
being an Empire of somekind would even be shorter by the standards of empire time. So for
America being stupid and young enough to be excused for at least this kind of uncontrolled
blind patriotism we have seen of late in the U.S., added to the total absence of attentioned
paid to all these American instigated wars, why us Americans are like distracted children in
a playground, so our youth is our only plead. I could be wrong, but this collective mindset
in our society here, makes me believe we need to do a lot of growing up in this nation, and
the world will be happy to throw the U.S. a coming of age party if peace is the prize.
The second matter is, is that I agree that Russia by having a defense oriented military
strategy is in better shape than like the U.S. having ourselves stretched out all over the
global network we have wove. You see I dont trust big, and Im leery of to much technology as
wellbut thats me. In fact, if a body existed like the UN who had some real juice were to laid
down some enforceable laws, I would then hedge towards them making nations have their
militaries situated more like the Russian Federation does.defensive. With the NFL in the news
so much these days this Good Defense thinking should make sense to no matter who stands or
kneels.
Lastly, the U.S. has already over spent itself on war, now the U.S. only needs to go on a
frantic rampage of somekind.lets hope it just boils down to rhetorical saber rattlings, and
the world laughs with us. Kim looks to be having a ball. I shouldnt have said that, but
sometimes a little humor lightens the reality.oh its very American to laugh when we should be
worried, but I digress..
Big isnt always better. You may look better in a $1,000. 00 suit than I do in my
$10,000.00 suit, and oh by the way these clothes we have on are still suits.
Nice conversation laninya. Joe
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 4:19 am
Ianinya – An excellent analysis. Right on the mark. Putin is not a dictator as they
malign him in the Media in The West. He is leading a team – very astute and shrewd
team. For Russia it is an existential struggle – a fight they can not lose. They have
been subjected to it during their entire History as you pointed out.
Americans – even our politicians and experts – do not have much understanding
of other peoples history – they do not understand Russia.
laninya , September 29, 2017 at 12:48 pm
Dave,
Well, its interesting what a person can learn these days just sitting in a chair, poking
at a few buttons on a keyboard. Never in the history of the world have ordinary people had so
many resources at their disposal and so much information at their fingertips. Yet, your last
sentence still seems accurate.
Why is that? In the US and Canada, we do have experts who are very knowledgable about
other peoples history and culture, including Russias. But, for some reason or another, there
are times when we just collectively choose to sideline and ignore them. In the US you have
Stephen F. Cohen Jack Matlock, and Sharon Tennison, among others, who can speak intelligently
about Russia. In Canada we have the voices of Patrick Armstrong, Paul Robinson, and the
blogger Mark Chapman (The Kremlin Stooge). Armstrong and Robinson both come from a military
background, both also publish easily accessible blogs.
I believe it was thanks to a commenter over at the Kremlin Stooge that I discovered a
book, then newly available in English translation, titled Russia and Europe / The Slavic
Worlds Political and Cultural Relations with the Gremanic-Roman West by Nikolai Danilevskii,
originally published c.1868.
Let me show you a quote from that book. A hundred and fifty years ago, Danilevskii wrote
this:
It is still in fashion among us to attribute everything to our unfamiliarity with Europe, and
to its ignorance concerning Russia. Our press says nothing, at least until recently, but our
enemies slander us. How would poor Europe learn the truth? It is shrouded in fog and
befuddled. Risum teneatis, amici; or, as we say in Russian, it would make a chicken laugh, my
friends. How could Europe -- which knows everything from the Sanskrit language to the
Iroquois dialects, from the laws of motion of complex solar systems to the structures of
microscopic organisms -- not know a thing about Russia? Such excuses -- ignorance, naivety,
and gullibility, as if we are talking about an innocent schoolgirl -- are laughable coming
from Europe, shrewd as a serpent.
Funny, eh?
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 8:37 pm
My comments have been in moderation for couple of hours, may be due to links to The Saker
I put in. I am posting it again without the links.
laninya,
The last paragraph in your comments, quotation from Danilevsky is very interesting. Yes,
you are right. There are quite a few people in academia and outside, like Stephen Cohen,
Matlock, and others. Matlock has been trying to calm the waters with his appearances on RT,
and a few other places, and also at the Valdai International discussion club forum. But these
people have no power.
Just about all the power – finance, media, TV, entertainment industry, foreign
policy, and to a large extent defense policy, in the U.S. is in the hands of the NeoCons,
mostly Zionists, in complicity with Israel.
You wrote about the Harvard Boys doing all this financial engineering on Russia during
1990s under that charlatan Yeltsin, who was in U.S. hands. I really thought The West has
finally finished Russia off – and that Russia can not recover in hundred years , as the
media was proclaiming here. Putin and his team has resurrected Russia once again – it
is almost a miracle. They – Russia – are not in good shape yet, but it seems like
they can defend themselves.
As you wrote, Russia, being at the cross roads, has faced invasions, and dangers
throughout its history – Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, under Tatar yoke for two centuries,
nomads from the steppes and Central Asia, Turks from the South, and from Caucasus warrior
tribes. From the West – Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Germany, and France.
Russia has been under constant existential threat through out its history, and so is today
under threat form U.S., and the rest of The West. Wests intervention in Syria for regime
change, and then Iran as target is all aimed at Russia. Russia had no other recourse but help
Syria against the Jihadis, armed and supported by The West.
But Syria still is not out of danger. There are some articles in the Saker today related
to it and Kurdistan issue. In Syria , it seems like U.S., SDF, and ISIS are working in tandem
to stop the advance of Syrian Army supported by Russia.
Laninya , September 30, 2017 at 12:15 am
Hey Dave,
Glad you tweaked to the Danilevskii quote. When I read it, I thought: wow! has time stood
still?
Let me address what you said about power, though. You wrote:
But these people have no power. Just about all the power – finance, media, TV,
entertainment industry, foreign policy, and to a large extent defense policy, in the U.S. is
in the hands of the NeoCons, mostly Zionists, in complicity with Israel.
See, I dont go along with that cop out. The population at large has the power to make or
break any of the entities listed above. If Neocons have power, its because people are buying
what theyre selling. Stephen Cohen and Jack Matlock do not because few want to hear what they
have to say right now.
As I said above, our Western economy was built on privateering. We know what butters our
bread (plunder), yet we also want to present ourselves as being on the side of the angels. So
we give power to the murders and thieves among us and then pretend were not responsible for
what they do. I read that as being the shrewd as a serpent part of what Danilevskii was
talking about.
As for the Saker, I frequent the Vineyard myself.
Thanks for the conversation.
Karl Sanchez , September 28, 2017 at 6:04 pm
Essentially, in other words, the CIAs having another recruiting drive to further undermine
what little remains of honest, deeply investigative journalism within the Outlaw US Empire.
The Big Black Hole gets dug deeper daily. The success of CIA brainwashing can be seen by the
number of people denouncing those Taking a Knee.
MaDarby , September 28, 2017 at 7:56 pm
Clearly propaganda works. People rage against the empire and then swallow whole its fear
mongering and demonizing of Russia ultimately siding with the Empire.
There are so many people journalists and persons loved by the left who have clearly now
sided with the Empire big names who just cave in and say oh just one more election in our
wonderful democracy please its pathetic. There is no such thing as democracy in an
Empire.
Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 9:14 am
what has been revealed by Republican government officials to be facts, like the intrusion
of voting machines in 21 states
One should be very careful about such facts – much of it has been retracted, and
usually the retraction receives much less attention than the original allegation. As far as
Wisconsin is concerned, the allegations have already been retracted: https://www.apnews.com/10a0080e8fcb4908ae4a852e8c03194d
Based on our external analysis, the WI IP address affected belongs to the WI Department of
Workforce Development, not the Elections Commission, said the email from Juan Figueroa, with
Homeland Securitys Office of Infrastructure Protection. So, while the attribution of the
source of the probing to the Russian state is speculative, in the case of Wisconsin, the
target was not even the elections commission, but the department of workforce
development.
Of course, not everything has explicitly been retracted, but when we look at this pattern
of allegations about Russia (like that they hacked the electric grid in Vermont) that are
later retracted, that should rather lead people to be skeptical about all these
allegations.
Constantine , September 29, 2017 at 1:44 pm
Your very mention of hacked e-mails reveals your extreme bias on the issue. In your view,
it would be impossible to expect one or more individuals with integrity in the IT department
of the DNC being horrified by the revelations and the dealings these revealed about the
pre-selected candidate Clinton. Some people may have been genuinely outraged by the attempt
of the DNC establishment hacks to undermine Sanders in violation of the partys own rules and
proceed to leak this sensitive info to Wikileaks. But for people like you it had to be
Russia.
If anything, the pitiful arguments and non-facts used to promote the fake Russia-gate
scandal further reinforce the certainty that this was concocted to attack Trumps presidency.
And what people like you fail to understand is that had a leftist candidate won the
elections, one who would be sincerely interested to change the course of the US in numerous
aspects of domestic and foreign policy, such an individual would face the same implacable
hostility by the neoliberal establishment.
And it is the servile mentality of a large number of the US/western citizenry – to
which part you obviously belong – that allows the same people who have spewing lies and
fantastic narratives that serve the countrys corporate oligarchy to get away again and again
and proceed to do so in every occasion it is required of them. There are no consequences for
deliberately spreading falsehoods and it always works.
As for the threat of an armageddon, if you honestly believe that penalizing diplomacy with
Russia (a fantastic achievement that was not seen during the Cold War) doesnt carry any
dangers, you have an extremely limited perception of international politics.
Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 2:57 pm
Mr. Goldman, your comments on this site are entertaining and obfuscating at once. You say,
as though speaking truth, …it did appear that the hacked e-mails and Trumps closing
arguments in the election, were coordinated. What hacked emails? There were no hacked emails,
though, like you, newspapers repeat that phrase to establish it as a given in peoples minds,
cementing the propaganda at which point it is no longer questioned. Seeit worked with you.
Hacking and leaking are entirely different processes. The emails were LEAKED from the DNC to
Julian Assange/Wikileaks. Period. Provable. Fact. Ground zero is the leaked emailsproving
Hilary wanted to discredit Sanders as an opponent, move forward on war with Iran and Russia
(both would be as illegal as all our other wars in the past 70 years), strengthen her
connections with the banking world, and become president. Since you say you want facts to
prevail, let them.
Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:15 pm
To say there is no proof of mischief is a conclusion that defies logic and fact. Firstly
we have every right to investigate this issue, and secondly Trump operatives and Russian
behavior created this investigation, not the other way around, and the evidence appears to
be growing.
I think this person is a True Believer in what is the logical extension of the Cheney
Doctrine. <and here I've been saying that the BushBots were all gone!) From the wiki:
If theres a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a
nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. Its not about
our analysis Its about our response.
In other words, the Bushies were going to do what they damned well pleased. Fast Forward
to 2017. From the essay above:
The Times article also might have mentioned that Twitter has 974 million accounts. So,
this alarm over 600 accounts is a bit disproportionate for a front-page story in the Times,
dont you think?
As Mr. Golden says, it defies logic not to treat this as a genuine Threat To American
Democracy. Approximately 1/10,000th of 1% of Twitter accounts are in on this scheme –
Mr. Parry is clearly being a contrary stick-in-the-mud for denying evidence which is
perfectly obvious to the most casual observer.
Seer , September 29, 2017 at 8:29 am
Do you type with a straight face? From your previous post: Trump operatives and Russian behavior created this investigation
anon , September 28, 2017 at 7:35 pm
More propaganda from the zionist scammer Golden:
1. The professional investigators did any usable internet tracing in 2016: routers do not
have second thoughts; the investigators made serious and amateurish mistakes and false
statements recently;
2. An abundance of caution was allowed in 2016 and is propaganda now;
3. It is absurd to say that statements of the lack of evidence defy logic and fact and then
be unable to cite a single bit of evidence;
4. More zionist lies pretending that the US Mideast policy is not dictated by Israeli
bribes;
5. More zionist lies that Russia and the US have conflicting, geo-political interests in the
Middle East, that have nothing to do with Israel
6. Spare us the fantasy and stick to the facts or go preach to your zionist paymasters.
D5-5 , September 28, 2017 at 6:27 pm
right track wrong track polling with current sept figures
Right track wrong track polling, links now waiting moderation, show in the 60 percentiles
America on the wrong track in successive years. In pursuing this type of polling I find in
similar sources, consistent over the past year, discontent with the government spending time
on the Russia conspiracy instead of getting after health care and other issues considered
more important. I also find 84% currently support the NFL athletes right to protest, but only
39% think taking a knee is acceptable. Also found a somewhat amusing reference to the
Lingerie Football League, which Id never heard of, females playing football in skimpy
outfits, and this (should I say body) states that the flag is too sacred to be protested.
Well, the Russkies didnt get to these lingerie football players yet, I am relieved to
report.
I found results in duck duck go under right track wrong track polling and do Americans
believe in Russia-gate and do Americans support NFL players protesting.
Robert Golden , September 28, 2017 at 7:38 pm
I think 12% of Americans favored the R health care plan. They have spent 9 months on it,
and havent given up. Two years pitching Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi as a complete
fabrication, so what is your point again? Further, check your data on the Russian
investigation again. I dont know anyone who doesnt support the investigation and Rachael
Maddow is now #1 on cable news (from 3rd), and thats all she talks about.
D5-5 , September 28, 2017 at 8:12 pm
This comment appears to be typical of your thinking, Robert, and Im sorry to say it does
no credit. You have taken what I said and twisted it. According to poll reports I was looking
at earlier, and some of these are now waiting moderation 65% of Americans felt the emphasis
on Russia-gate overdone and want the government to spend time on more important matters, such
as health care, which you dismiss here as outright incorrect. In your previous reply to me
you revealed what your certainty about fact rests on: in your own words that is hunch. Well,
hunch wont do it for the critical thinking youre calling for, Robert, which I respectfully
suggest you do more of. Your cred here is pretty low at the moment. I mean no malice by
saying so.
Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm
R. Golden, Here are some facts: Healthcare for all citizens in this country would be half
the cost for twice the care. Period. Read T.R. Reids book, investigating other countries with
free health care for all. It is amusing that Fidel Castro once pointed out the Cuban
education and health care systems compared to the US.
All citizens want healthcare for all, except those few who are made wealthy keeping the
status quo (pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, those doctors in the AMA who are paid off
for supporting certain markets in the medical fields and encouraging use of certain drugs,
and paid-off politicians who lobby for these thieves and get funding for their elections).
Why should those handful of money hungry men control our health system? You may be interested
to learn that the people in the medical field who actually care about patients, the vast
majority, want Medicare from birth forward.
Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 3:51 pm
R. Golden, Rachael Maddow has lost her creditability with her rants about Russia and
pro-militarism, neither stance defendable. If shes now ranked 3rd, that is indicative of the
low level of intelligence and critical thinking in the country. After all, Russia/Putin is
innocent until proven otherwise (not by guesses, hunches, innuendos, suggestions, quotes by
unnamed officials, and outright lies). After all, ALL our wars since WWII have been illegal
and against international law, and are engaged with false flags. Should we support soldiers
who are sent into battle to murder innocent civilians in sovereign lands? No. That would be
insanity.
WC , September 28, 2017 at 6:53 pm
Bad enough on my safe space that I have Paul Craig Roberts harping on these same issues,
now Parry joins the fray. I need to be reassured that there is no profit in a nuclear
wasteland and even political sociopaths and the bankers that own them have an instinct for
survival. In the back of my head I keep hearing George C. Scotts character in Strangelove
saying, http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003295/quotes
floyd gardner , September 28, 2017 at 8:26 pm
WaterCloset, a courtesy flush please?
WC , September 29, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Good one. :) But you cant flush the level of BS that has been fed to the public over the
past number of years. Thats why Trump the plumber was elected, to drain the swamp etc.
So now what happens? 20+ trillion in debt with 100+ trillion in unfunded liabilities, let
alone off-shoring all those jobs is a fairly good indicator the shit is backed up to the
ceiling. If we are to believe Trump actually makes any decisions, what are his choices? QE4?
Austerity to piss people off even more? Or start another war someplace to take peoples minds
off the collapsing economy?
To quote Bachman Turner Overdrive – You Aint Seen Nothing Yet.
Danny Weil , September 28, 2017 at 7:17 pm
America is stumbling into a diystopic future with a clueless public and a corporate
fascist government.
Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:30 pm
The motivation of the neocon NYT is worth speculating about. Yes, they've been wanting to
smash Muslim nations for israel for ages. What other possible motives might there be?
Why are these billionaires doubling down on Israeli Investments?
What do Bill Gates, Carlos Slim Helu, Mark Cuban, Donald Trump, and Warren Buffett all
have in common?
Speculation – it might be as simple as money. Remember, Israel OWNS the US Congress,
and has managed to put the fear of God into every last one of them. This unprecedented
influence could easily be translated into some enormous financial benefits for those Rich
Guys who suck up in the proper and approved manner. It would be as simple as slipping in some
innocent-looking phrases into some of the boring legislation hardly anybody reads. You can
bet that it would pass, and you can also bet that the Corporate Media will keep their yaps
shut about it.
So thats another theory – plain and simple corruption midwifed by the thieving and
murdering little shithole of an apartheid nation.
I seem to have forgotten to mention that Carlos Slim is supposed to be a major stockholder
of the neocon NYT.
Robert Golden , September 28, 2017 at 7:48 pm
Please do some reading. Your first stop should be the Koch Bros who own the largest track
of Canadian Tar Sands, and are potentially going to be twice as rich, after Trump approved
the Keystone Pipeline, from Canada through the middle of America all the way to the flooded
and toxic plains, to Houston (final destination Asia). Youll find they already own most of
the global warming denying Congress (not Israel), and their next extraction site will
probably be the Grand Canyon. After you have read up on the Kochs, check out the Mercers.
Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 8:24 pm
koch Bros
Canadian Tar Sands
Keystone Pipeline
Mercers
The connection of these places and people to the BS peddling by the NYT isnt entirely
clear to me.
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 9:21 am
The connection is that this modern Roman Empire is very big: the inheritors of the Roman
Empire (France, Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, and so on) have been wanting to smash Muslim
Empires for 1500 years, having lost their M.E. and N. African Provinces to them. Since the
Zion project was hatched by Cecil Rhodes RoundTable Group in the19th century, the Israel
Project is a project of the British Province of the modern Roman Empire, which ALSO commands
considerable influence in its Western Provinces Canada and USA, hence: Koch Bros.,Canadian
Tar Sands, Keystone Pipeline, Mercers. Of course Im talking about the integrated community of
1%er Oligarchs, NOT The People of these Provinces. Corbyn and Sanders (and whoever the
Canadian and Israeli equivalents would be) can throw a gigantic Monkey Wrench into these
imperial shenanigans
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 9:26 am
Israel is a way of continuing the smashing process of Muslim Empires by the modern Roman
Empire, and I forgot to say that Germany is also a very big part of the modern Roman Empire,
which carried the name Holy Roman Empire up to Napoleonic times (which, BTW, ole Nappie
himself became their model for a modern Fascist Roman Emperor, as his Generals and extremely
regressive factions within the Catholic Church hatched the Synarchy Internationale Project
mid-19th century).
hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 11:59 am
ok, you brought it up, so i will run with it..
bringing it around full circle.
modern roman empire. yes. agreement . but
only british monarchy. with allies, not partners. why is this important? if one looks at
the history of the royal institute for international affairs, one can see that the crown had
to figure out how to maintain control of their assets. fast forward to the american branch.
its called the council on foreign relations. the number of members in our government over
years and years is staggering. just keep that in mind.
there is ample evidence of british involvement in the us war of northern aggression. and
not just because they traded with the south. did you know that the monarchys cousins, the
russian crown, sent warships to california in defense of the union?
its my opinion that this act is what sealed the fate of the romanovs in 1917. payback. for
whatever reason the british crown holds grudges. im irish. not sure what my ancestors did to
piss them off but they havent let off on our people in a thousand years…
this anti russia thing started before obama although it was not as overt.
the orange color revolution happened in (wait for it….) ukraine under bush. and
while not reported as a cia supported venture, i think we know what happened.
does anyone remember 8/8/08? opening day of the olympics in china. but a mini war was
started in south ossetia. american media initially reported that russians had attacked un
soldiers there.
the present anti russian hysteria started when putin checkmated the neo libs/neo cons when
their attempt to destabilize syria failed. thats when i observed the overt media attacks
begin.
funny thing. i have actually been to russia and ukraine. in 1979. it was the first time in
my life that i had been outside of the usa. the government propaganda of the previous 60
years had made me think of all russians as evil bond villians. it was eye opening to finally
meet real russians. understand they were just people like me. i was 16 and it was the first
time i had the blinders lifted. a real learning moment.
so, i guess that makes me guilty of collusion. sorry to you hillary supporters.
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 2:21 pm
Yes, hated, I agree with you on all points. Czar Alexander II was killed (he was Lincolns
Ally against British and French plans to join battle with Davis against Lincoln. Lincoln was
killed for the Greenback maneuver around British monetary control (a Venetian style of Empire
via monetary control & manipulation). Lincolns war of agression was a war against the
superpower British Empire and its puppet the Confederacy (Planter Oligarchs), Wall Street
assets (J.P. Morgan & Co., money handlers for the Planters), and the Essex Country Junto
(New England Blue Bloods in shipping for the Empires slave and Opium trade). The Planter
oligarchy was crushed. The Wall Streeters lived on (Essex County Junto bluebloods tooour Axis
of Evil against the Republic, and Independence from Empire). Lincolns GreenBacks was a
typical example of the American Credit System of Political Economy (control of economy by a
Sovereign Nation-States Government in the hands of We The People via House of
Representatives, a deadly threat to the British-Style of Empire via a Venetian Monetary
System manipulated & controlled by oligarchs. Russia always supported USA Revolution as a
counter-balance to British Empire designs on Russia (enemy of my enemy is my friend),(and
French Empire and Ottoman Empire too, as evidenced by Crimean War 1856).
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 2:25 pm
British Crown is Princeps? (First among Equals)
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 4:15 pm
Im of Welsh-Irish ancestry (Irish on my mothers side). Her grand father came over as a
stow-a-way to flee the potato famine (neo liberal economics at its purestancestor of TINA
Thatcherism and austerities, deficits, balanced budgets and suchlike wicked gaming with
peoples lives (but Banks and MIIC are too big to fail of course). Lincoln would have just
GreenBacked his way out of Depression and imminent economic collapse (a Credit System
recognizing it is LABOR upon raw materials that is the SOURCE of ALL wealth, NOT Venetian
Fondi in an oligarchs off-shore piggy bank). The grudge against the Celtic Fringe (Welsh and
Scotts too) comes from the fact that we were on the the Islands first, by many Centuries
before the Angels, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians showed up. This is just flawed human nature in
action. I suppose the Picts can claim the same grievance against us Celts; American Indians
too. The enemy is Oligarchy. It s class warfare, not Tribal warfare, and THEY are masters at
divide-to-conquer, seeking out all useful flaws and weaknesses.
As the rest of the world also sees the US fabrications, American may one day find itself
under fire from many directions. No one likes a dirty player.
Louise , September 28, 2017 at 7:47 pm
While it may appear to become a nuisance after more than a year, it may
also become very dangerous. It could be a serious effort to get the
populace to condone an illegal war in Syria involving Russia. People
dont pay much attention to Assad and the Syrians, but the Russians
are already complaining about US forces working with ISIS. If those
reports are true the plausible deniability will work if the people are
preconditioned to disbelieve whatever comes from the Kremlin.
Washington accuses others of nefarious tactics it employs itself. Now Washington accuses
the Syrian Arab Army of colluding with the wahabist militants bent on genocide in Syria. This
accusation alone informs the audience that Washington is in collusion with the wahabist
militant gangs operating across the globe.
In the link you will see how the SDF seems to cut through wahabist gang territory like a hot
knife through butter. Easily securing the region north of Deir es-Zor, and are currently
cutting west across the desert as fast as those ubiquitous toyota trucks can carry them
without showing any evidence of fighting, according to Russian surveillance.
Russia is all about protecting its buffer zone & rightly so. The West plays the Great
Game while an unwitting public buys the rationale for standing up to Russia, China, Iran etc.
Why wouldnt the Russians use the Trump admin to shore up its borders to protect them from
NATO expansion? Trump is surely engaged in laundering the Russian oligarchs money. How else
could it be after the US did everyting it could to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union
& let it be taken over by industries privatized by Yeltzin as a schill for America. As
Putin has pointed out, the collapse of the SU was the worst thing that happened in the 20th
cent.
Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 10:17 am
As far as I know, Putin did not say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst
thing that happened (to Russia?) in the 20th century. That would hardly be plausible –
even if the 90es were very bad for Russia, the Holocaust and Nazi Germanys attack on the
Soviet Union with about 20 million Soviet victims was almost certainly worse. Also the crimes
of Stalinism are certainly on a larger scale than the collapse of the Soviet Union.
What Putin said was: Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet
Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became
a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside
Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.
a major geopolitical disaster of the century does not necessaily mean the greatest
geopolitical disaster of the century
As with some other statements (for example the canard that Putin allegedly praised Trump
as a genius in December 2015), the basis of the claim is a translation problem. This question
is discussed here:
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10457/what-is-the-basis-for-putin-describing-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-as-the/10549
Putin used a superlative form krupneyshaya. The meaning of this form is similar to the
Italian grandissima and means very big. But it does not necessarily mean the biggest,
although it could in some contexts.
hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 12:06 pm
i like your comment. well researched.
Constantine , September 29, 2017 at 2:02 pm
The crimes of Stalin did not leave the country – USSR or Russia – a moribund
state. The population was increasing in the end of the 30s and the country was an
industrialized power that could not be easily threatened by other forces, short of being hit
by the most powerful army in the world (which is what happened). Russia by the late 90s was a
post-apocalyptic gangland with a fast decreasing population and a swiftly unraveling state
and society. That was a product of the collapse of the USSR and the ensuing neoliberal shock
treatment.
Since the countrys descent into the abyss was stopped by Putin & Co, it goes without
saying that this was the cause of the recent outburst of Putinophobia.
Lois Gagnon , September 28, 2017 at 9:39 pm
It all reeks of desperation on the part of the Empires power trippers. They know in the
back of their minds that their criminal racket is faltering. Russiagate is the duct tape
holding the house of cards together. At least until they can finish looting every last drop
of profit from as many colonies (including this one) as they can.
Sorry to say, the same phenomenon has been at work in climate science for quite some
time.
Apparently its all about providing fodder for propaganda outlets and requiring conformity
on the part of the white collar set.
Whether or not its convincing to the masses is not an issue.
Russiagate will be easier to fudge over the long term, and short of an upset in the power
structure may prevail for some decades until revision finally takes place.
Hide Behind , September 28, 2017 at 11:46 pm
The original inveztigation was begun by a man since fired, N. Y. STAtes attorney General,
and it had to do nothing at all about election interference by Russia proper,:It was about
Trumps illegally laundering Russian Oligarchs stolen funds from Russia.
Trail led to and thru AGI bank of Germany and off shore banking in Bahamas. Same facilitys
Clinton Foundation uses.
This got into a cluster fu.. when Feds and Congress intervened. As the Investigation also
uncovered many a counts to politicly connected elected and appointed officials who like as
Russia showed Mc Cains letters Doing for contributions from high ranking Russians during his
run for Prez.
Same formula as used clear back to Arizona 5s embezzlement of Fed HUD and FHA funds and
original Clintons when in Arkansas of same embezzlement that got sidetracked into a Lie about
a BJ in white house by girl.
Smoke and mirrors have hid many many a prominent and financial miscreants deeds in US.
Yet the brain washed still a t as if they live in a
Democracy, And like Little Ikemens salute the flag and let children never learn difference of
indoctrinated Nationalism from Ideals of
patriotism.
Dumb As Rocks Spout, Support The Troop, But Not The War, As the volunteer troop slaughter
hundreds of thousands and displace millions.
into eternal poverty by just following orders.
Go watch your military recruitment indoctrination and show your loyalty to permanent warfare
as millions of Americans suffer from your as S ki
Hide Behind , September 29, 2017 at 1:47 am
I would like to recommend George Orwells collection of essays, All art is propaganda, it
is not so much of a heavy read as it is time consuming as so many essays when finished invade
ones mind that one pauses to assimilate and judge the content fully before beginning
next.
As for slime:
It is said that government began in Mespotamia and it was quite a model for each following
social order; That is until the Greeks invented politics and since them chaos reigns.
Politics defy treason and logic as well as natural physical laws.
For unlike in natures scheme of things pond slime sinks to the bottom. Whereas in politics
the slime raises to the top.
Not of Orwell s caliber of writing, just my own observation of USA politi Al system.
Realist , September 29, 2017 at 2:53 am
This Spanish Inquisition being run by the Congress is getting to the point of absurdity.
They ought to be prosecuted for trying to deliberately deceive the public, and simply for
insulting the intelligence of everyone on the planet earth.
RT reports the following, they are usually spot on accurate with their reporting since
Washington is always trying to debunk them:
Earlier this month, Facebook said that it had identified up to $150,000 in advertising,
purchased between June 2015 and May 2017, that was connected to roughly 470 inauthentic
accounts and pages that were likely operated out of Russia, Chief Security Officer Alex
Stamos wrote. Stamos admitted that the vast majority of ads run by these accounts had nothing
to do with the election, voting, or a particular candidate.
Google said it had failed to unearth any facts that would implicate Moscow in exploiting
advertising to manipulate the election. Were always monitoring for abuse or violations of our
policies and weve seen no evidence this type of ad campaign was run on our platforms, Google
said last week, according to Reuters.
During the 2016 election, Twitter said they deleted thousands of tweets and accounts that
attempted to suppress or otherwise interfere with the exercise of voting rights, including
the right to have a vote counted, by circulating intentionally misleading information. This
included tweets that told users they could cast their ballots by text or tweet, which is not
true. Twitter also said that they shared the content of deleted tweets with investigators on
Thursday. The company however noted that they did not find any of those accounts had obvious
Russian origin. All these things were presented before Congress on Thursday.
So, Facebook, Google and Twitter all provide scant evidence, if any, that Russia or
Russians directed any disinformation at the American voter to try to sabotage our democracy.
If anything of the sort got through, it was certainly like a single tear drop in the deluge
of mud-slinging that the American candidates and their two parties constantly cast at one
another. Any sane person would realise nothing consequential was or really could be attempted
against that torrent of genuine American-made bullcrap, so there was zero motive to do so,
and we know that Putin is no fool to waste his time or resources. Yet, Adam Schiff presents
his hideous visage, peanut brain and deceptive words on American network television yesterday
and claims that its certain fact that the Russian government sabotaged our election by
purchasing ads on Facebook and tweeting mean things about Hillary Clinton on Twitter. For
good measure, he says Russia is also guilty of stirring up the whole Black lives matter
campaign and the bruhaha about taking a knee during the national anthem played at sporting
events. They wouldnt try making this stuff up even in Alices Wonderland. It would fail to get
a laugh in the Onion, even on April 1st. These people are a national embarrassment for being
so blatantly and shamelessly dishonest. These are the same knuckleheads who thought Baghdad
Bob was the propaganda parody to end them all, and theyve gone him one better far better.
I eagerly hope to see examples of the handful of ads and tweets that the conspiracy freaks
in the Congress have made the centerpiece of their case against Russia. But if they are
nothing more than blurbs advertising their media productions (like watch Larry King, Ed
Schultz or Tom Hartmann), I doubt we will ever will. Or, maybe they said something extremely
provocative like watch RT and evaluate the facts for yourself. Wow, that would be tantamount
to an act of war (in the minds of neocons), but still not enough to warrant a viewing by the
American public which still might harbor some sane individuals.
Trust me – as an Amerikanska in Russia – I think some Russians are hating me
when they hear me speak some English while from the other side –America – I no
longer get e-mails from -- Anyone. I understand where the Russians are coming from because I
see the demonization of their country coming from the Americans and their axis, but to see
the Americans get sooo programmed in propaganda that they cant even listen to someone theyve
known for decades -- is pretty disgusting , especially when some of them are/ used to be
– rather intelligent. Spacibo Mr. Parry and commenters.
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 6:51 am
Why Americans ever put any stock in the self-serving propaganda put out by the wealthy
owners of the major media is a mystery, until you consider all the false ideas about America
that have already been shoveled into their heads by their long public education brainwashing
and numbing experience. The basic idea promoted by our culture is just shut up and accept
whatever garbage you are told, and you will get along fine (conform). Start asking a lot of
challenging questions, and you are in for a lot of trouble. I know this from personal
experience, I was always in a lot of trouble with the self-satisfied authorities in my life,
including my parents and teachers. I am forever grateful that I stubbornly persisted in
questioning authority, in spite of all the difficulties it has caused me.
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 7:03 am
The football players who are taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem, are
experiencing the fury of those who clutch their societal group-think like a precious security
blanket. Our public opinion manipulator in chief D. Trump is making it clear why it was said
that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Score one propaganda ploy for the scoundrel
in chief.
Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:59 am
Yes all this nonsense while at the same time, once again I might add, the 1st Amendment
takes a backseat to Private Ownership.now stand up damn it.
Sam F , September 29, 2017 at 10:19 am
Yes, the groupthink of mass media is accepted by most for personal security.
Mass media tell them the oligarchy line as what other people think so they dare not
disagree.
Mass media say that all are unethical so why pay a price to be good citizens.
But it is very significant that the football players refused to display nationalism.
D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 12:12 pm
It is also significant in signaling automatic (pavlovian) behavior, no questions asked,
and right in line with my country right or wrong and blind obedience, attitudes historically
is associated with autocracy and repression. I have yet to see any commentary on what the
flag means, or possible contexts of meaning, including that it stands for the current
governing system, as well as for historical considerations. Sorry to harp on this, but the
scantily dressed females of the Lingerie Football League in stating the flag is too sacred
evidently found no inconsistency in their salutes with serious faces while scantily clad.
This seems to me akin to going to church in a bikini and somehow contradictory to sacred. But
sacred in itself hearkens back to the 1690s and the Salem witch trials before separation of
church and state became understood as more rational. Any kind of worship can be taken too far
into mindlessness, which is contradictory to the ideals this country was founded on in terms
of equality and the first amendment. Beware of the scoundrels indeed.
I have always wondered why you seldom get reflections of the illness in American society,
after reading articles like this. Trump is mad, Hillary is evil, the MS media is corrupt and
dishonest. But its American culture that is responsible for thisthese arent accidents or
untypical. Self-honesty is the least common of all American characteristics. Hunting for
excuses and boogeymen, one of the most common.
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:25 am
The tacit belief in our exceptionalism makes us immune to self-criticism. Another name for
American Hubris. Our belief that we are Gods chosen ones explains in part our strange
affinity with Israel.
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 11:39 am
The American Culture was concocted with Malice Afore Thought by the Congress of Cultural
Freedom (CCF) starting in the Post-War years: from EIR search box; Congress of cultural
freedom; making the world safe for fascism, also from search box; Synarchy against
America.
Clif , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am
NPR is complicit, giving Mark Jacobson of Georgetown a platform on Sept. 28 All Things
Considered to pontificate about how Americans are falling prey to Russian disinformation.
This entire sequence has drained me of any faith in American Intelligence operations, and
MSM.
napier , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am
The researchers defined junk news as propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyperpartisan,
or *conspiratorial political news and information*.
I face-palmed when I read this. The lack of self-awareness on the part of the researchers
is truly amazing.
Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am
Often with such propagandistic allegations – be it WMD in Iraq or Russian meddling
-, there are problems that go beyond the lack of evidence. People without access to secret
information could not know, of course, whether these was a good basis for the allegations
about WMD. Certainly, people should have demanded that some of the evidence is made public,
but even if someone accepts that some things must remain secret, it simply did not make sense
to use the presentation of Colin Powell before the UN as a basis for starting a war. It could
have been a basis for intensifying the inspections – and at that time, after some
pressure, the Iraqi government allowed inspections everywhere -, but it certainly was no
basis for stopping the inspections and starting a war of aggression.
Similarly, it is clear that those who put forward allegations about Russian meddling (some
are regularly retracted, some arent and their status remain unclear) have the burden of
proof. But the problem is not just that evidence is lacking, but many of these allegations
are not very plausible and make little sense.
The first problem is that many statements in US media presuppose a worldview of
international politics as a kind of zero sum game and dont even ask the question whether such
a worldview is appropriate and whether it is common in Russia. It is just assumed that Russia
and the United States are enemies and that anything that is bad for the United States is good
for Russia and anything that is bad for Russia is good for the United States. Of course,
there are areas in international politics where the United States have conflicting positions,
but such a worldview based on a zero-sum game is far from obvious. What exactly should be the
advantage for Russia when internal divisions in the United States are increased? Is it
plausible that the United States is more likely to take the Russian perspective more
seriously or be ready for compromises if it has more severe internal divisions? Not
necessarily, I would even think that the opposite is more likely. Probably, the proponents of
this theory could come up with a story why in that case it would make sense for Russia to
increase internal divisions in the United States, but mostly, this question is not even
asked, and these stories look more like an ad-hoc justification for a preconceived story.
Then, ignoring the doubts whether it would really make sense from a strategic point of
view for Russia to exacerbate internal divisions in the United States for a moment, what
would someone who, indeed, has the goal to increase internal divisions in the United States
do? At first sight, it might seem that supporting both sides in existing conflicts (e.g. for
and against BLM, for and against gun rights, for and against NFL players kneeling down etc.)
may make sense. But the problem is that such a line of reasoning ignores the question of
effectiveness. As far as these matters are concerned, there are already many US citizens who
passionately support one of the two sides, and there are US donors who are ready to support
one of these sides. If, in addition to those passionate supporters of one side, someone who
is interested in increasing the divisions also supports both sides, the effect relative to
the resources that are needed is relatively small. This may not be a strong counter-argument
if we were talking about a large rich country attempting to meddle in a small poor one, but
that is hardly an adequate description of the relationship of Russia to the United States.
Certainly, on the whole, the Russian state still has quite a lot of resources, but if it had
the goal to increase internal divisions in the United States, adding a bit more to both sides
of existing conflicts about which many Americans are so passionate that they are ready to use
time and in some cases money to support one of the two sides would probably so ineffective
that it would hardly make sense. Attempting to create new conflicts could theoretically make
sense – then, we should see ads and social media campaigns about conflicts that are not
very prominent in public discourse (I dont know about any evidence or even indications that
this is actually done) -, but when there are just ads and social media messages from fake
accounts for both sides of common existing conflicts, other explanations are more plausible.
For instance, it can be that it only seems that they come from a common source because of
some superficial features, but are in fact from opposing sides (i.e. people who want to
support one of the sides in the conflict, not to increase the conflict by supporting both
sides), or it could be that there is a common source, but that the common source is a
commercial entity that conducts campaigns for both sides for money (and maybe there are some
people who use Russian language settings or some parts of that business are in Russia).
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:29 am
To expect most American citizens to think rationally is to expect the impossible. Not only
were they not taught to think critically; they were taught not to do that.
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:35 am
And because of that deficiency in the public, if we wish to effect some change in their
thinking, we are reduced to employing the same emotion based methods that have proven so
successful for the establishment and its propagandists. The simple truth has zero effect on
the typical American Zombie – he is too dead sure that his conditioning trumps
reality.
D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 11:37 am
It is almost amusing, as with this mainstream analysis from CNN (Sept 26), that states the
FB ads were meant to sew divisions and chaos in the electorate, with many of the messages at
cross-purposes.
The apparent goal of the ads, the sources who spoke with CNN said, was to amplify
political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos around the 2016 presidential
campaign, not necessarily to promote one candidate or cause over another.
This assessment is spoken with great seriousness and a recommendation that these ads be
made accessible to the public. This MSM report also assumes that the Russia-bought accounts
stem from official Russia or the Kremlin, with no further discussion. A CNN poll claims 54%
of Americans believe Russia interfered via these FB ads. Further breakdown in that polling
indicates the lions share comes from whites who believe this.
But as you point out, Adrian, the body politic is (and was during the election period)
already riven and in a state of incivility (another claim of the purpose of these FB ads) as
we could see by reviewing behaviors in the election itself, to include Trumps statements at
his rallies and Hillary Clintons actions in consort with a corrupted DNC. Common sense would
indicate these widely exposed rogue behaviors at the time would out-do a mere 100,000 spent
on FB, as has already been pointed out, so the CNN report is in danger of desperate
exaggeration.
As far back as 2014 surveys of that time indicates the American publics trust in MSM had
plummeted to something like 40%, and although I cannot find current figures on this (in 2016
RT found that only 6% of Americans trust MSM, but thats RT) but especially given the fiasco
of the 2016 election, plausibly, that sense of trust is not increasing much. So that, given
the already fractious and uncivil state of the country in many respects what were seeing is a
continuation of desperate efforts to use the Russia did it meme for various political and
opportunistic purposes. Further, MSM besides in the employ of special interests, has a
naturally in-built bias toward presentation of dramatic, simplistic viewpoints that incite
emotionalism and nationalism.
As I noted yesterday, the NFL controversy currently includes, with a straight face,
scantily dressed female football players of the Lingerie Football League claiming that the
flag is too sacred to be protested as they stand there with their booties exposed in the wind
clutching their chests with straight faces. This sort of high drama is surely could for MSM
audiences and ratings.
As to why a lot of Americans dont think critically about these matters there are, again,
the problems of survival, job-holding, paying rent, dealing with an outrageous health care
scheme which treats them as profit opportunities, increasing police management, and rising
inflation, let alone the morbidity and turn-off that considering politics has become.
Methinks the MSM furor now turning to FB in its puny weight to be taken seriously is
getting more and more desperate–and ridiculous.
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 12:01 pm
D5-5 –
Your comments: As to why a lot of Americans dont think critically about these matters
there are, again, the problems of survival, job-holding, paying rent, dealing with an
outrageous health care scheme which treats them as profit opportunities, increasing police
management, and rising inflation, let alone the morbidity and turn-off that considering
politics has become.
You have summed up the state in which an average person lives here now.
hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 12:24 pm
ok, i have to say it.
everybody is stupid. all over the world. and yet.everybody is a genius. even though i
partake in this complaining about how
stupid people are sometimes. its really not true. people are smart. just easily led.
i find that americans are just used to being propagandized. its a habit. that only some of
us are starting to come out of. if the workings of propaganda and advertising were taught in
school, at a young age, the world would be a better place. i think most of the commenters
here at consortium news have probably made that jump from believing the media blindly. but we
are still a minority. and to be honest, some views i see repeated here still seem to reflect
this instinctive belief in doctrines put forth in the media. remember that its only been
about 8 generations of people since we threw off the monarchy here. talk about
indoctrination…thats really not a long time. the history of kings/queens as rulers
takes up a much larger part of the history of human existence. one could even say its in our
genes..epi-genetics…
modern propaganda is only 100 years old or so.
so a modern antidote should be thought of.
well hopefully figure it out.
D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 12:31 pm
Dave, Im privileged in being able to spend so much time here in this forum and do some
thinking. But out on the street I find a different situation than what were discussing here
so often with (including myself) the tendency to talk of the American sheeple and stupidity
and such. I find people in supermarket parking lots in a state of despair, asking me for a
quarter, their misery plain on their faces. Im told 45 million Americans are on the verge of
poverty and in poverty. Where I go, too, I find my community members trying to be civil, most
of them, and theres not a whole lot of political talk at the cashier stands in the grocery
stores. I despair that this beautiful country, which still has a great deal going for it, is
knuckled under to the worst political system Ive seen in my lifetime going back decades. I do
not understand that an opposition party could become so inept and corrupted into
incompetence, and the ruling party in a state of incoherence and stupidity. And yet I can
give all this sort of thing time and thinking, but how many can? I love this country and the
people, and am very saddened at the travesty, and where we now stand in world opinion.
There is endless wars and devastation around the world
Western war criminals have their war banners unfurled
Millions dead and many millions uprooted
And the financial system is corrupted and looted
Blame it on Putin
The war criminals are free and spreading bloody terror
And their dirty propaganda says Putin is an aggressor
These evil plotters of death and destruction
Should be in jail for their abominable actions
But, Blame it on Putin.
The American election is won by Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton loses and gets politically dumped
The media is frenzied and foaming at their mouths
They are crying and lying, these corporate louts
They Blame it on Putin
Hollywood, too, is getting in on the act
The B.S. merchants are able to twist facts
In their fantasy world of channel changers
They do not approve of a political stranger
They Blame it on Putin
The spymasters and their grovelling politicians
All agree that their democracy is lost in transmission
Their comfortable and controlled system is now in danger
And these powerful parasites are filled with anger
They Blame it on Putin
One loose canon talks and babbles of an act of war
Could nuclear hell be started by a warmongering whore?
If the madmen of the establishment get their way
Could we all be liquidated in the nuclear fray?
Blame it on Putin
There is no doubt that the ruling class
Are all worried about saving their ass
Could there be huge changes and still more coming?
Is the sick and depraved society finally crumbling?
Hey, Blame it on Putin
[more info at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/01/blame-it-on-putin.html
Having just watched the episode of Oliver Stones excellent Untold History of the United
States which deals with the earliest historical political period which I can remember from
first hand experience, I found the revisiting of Ronald Reagan bald-faced lies delivered with
absolute seeming sincerity to be truly frightening. He was either a truly underestimated
first-rate actor, a complete psychopath, or he really was just a carefully picked figurehead.
Perhaps it really was as intimated in the episode that it was more a Bush II/Cheney sort of
thing, the first two options sort of meld into each other if the lies he repeated were done
so knowingly and he just didnt seem to have the intellectual capacity for much of anything
arduous like being an actual Machiavellian.
The most important thing about this was just how easy it was, at the time, to just take
the edifice of lies at face value. I was in my teens at the time, but I did consider myself
to be of a rather independent mindset and much of what was bandied by these Republican Party
Reptiles (not a funny proposition at all really in the end despite ORourkess seductiveness)
rang false. That did not stop them from acquiring the patina of Truth, albeit ever so
superficial, due to the hypnotic authoritative method of their delivery. Im glad I properly
discovered the work of Robert Parry even if it is belatedly, due to my own Sleep of Reason
because of this saturation of falsehoods despite his tireless work along with other
similar-minded people. I can sense some frustration here in his phrasing with the seeming
lack of difference this tireless work seems to be making to the general perception but I am
grateful for his lucidity, which contributes to mine. How long will such lucidity be allowed
to be disseminated, one can only wonder.
"... And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental organizations if they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic process no matter how sloppy the research or how absurd the findings. ..."
"... And, if you think the pillars of the U.S. mainstream media – The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN and others – will apply some quality controls, you havent been paying attention for the past year or so. The MSM is just as unethical as the NGOs are. ..."
"... So, we are now in a phase of Russia-gate in which NGO scholars produce deeply biased reports and their nonsense is treated as front-page news and items for serious discussion across the MSM. ..."
"... The story, which fits neatly into the current U.S. propaganda meme that the Russian government somehow is undermining American democracy by stirring up dissent inside the U.S., quickly spread to other news outlets and became the latest proof of a Russian war against America. ..."
"... The vague wording doesn't even say the Russian government was involved but rather presents an unsupported claim that some Twitter accounts are suspected of being part of some network and that this network may have some ill-defined connection – or links – to Russia, a country of 144 million people. ..."
As the U.S. government doles out tens of millions of dollars to 'combat Russian propaganda',
one result is a slew of new 'studies' by 'scholars' and 'researchers' auditioning for the loot
...
The Field of Dreams slogan for Americas NGOs should be: If you pay for it, we will come.
And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental organizations if
they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic process no matter how
sloppy the research or how absurd the findings.
And, if you think the pillars of the U.S. mainstream media – The Washington Post, The
New York Times, CNN and others – will apply some quality controls, you havent been paying
attention for the past year or so. The MSM is just as unethical as the NGOs are.
So, we are now in a phase of Russia-gate in which NGO scholars produce deeply biased reports
and their nonsense is treated as front-page news and items for serious discussion across the
MSM.
Yet, there's even an implicit confession about how pathetic some of this scholarship is in
the hazy phrasing that gets applied to the findings, although the weasel words will slip past
most unsuspecting Americans and will be dropped for more definitive language when the narrative
is summarized in the next days newspaper or in a cable-news crawl.
For example, a Times front-page
story on Thursday reported that a network of Twitter accounts suspected of links to Russia
seized on both sides of the [NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem] issue with
hashtags, such as #boycottnfl, #standforouranthem and #takeaknee.
The story, which fits neatly into the current U.S. propaganda meme that the Russian
government somehow is undermining American democracy by stirring up dissent inside the U.S.,
quickly spread to other news outlets and became the latest proof of a Russian war against
America.
However, before we empty the nuclear silos and exterminate life on the planet, we might take
a second to look at the Times phrasing a network of Twitter accounts suspected of links to
Russia.
The vague wording doesn't even say the Russian government was involved but rather presents an
unsupported claim that some Twitter accounts are suspected of being part of some network and
that this network may have some ill-defined connection – or links – to Russia, a
country of 144 million people.
Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon
Its like the old game of six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon. Yes, perhaps we are all
linked to Kevin Bacon somehow but that doesnt prove that we know Kevin Bacon or are part of a
Kevin Bacon network that is executing a grand conspiracy to sow discontent by taking opposite
sides of issues and then tweeting.
Yet that is the underlying absurdity of the Times article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Scott
Shane. Still, as silly as the article may be that doesn't mean its not dangerous. The Times
high-profile treatment of these gauzy allegations represents a grave danger to the world by
fueling a growing hysteria inside the United States about being at war with nuclear-armed
Russia. At some point, someone might begin to take this alarmist rhetoric seriously.
Yes, I understand that lots of people hate President Trump and see Russia-gate as the golden
ticket to his impeachment. But that doesnt justify making serious allegations with next to no
proof, especially when the outcome could be thermonuclear war.
However, with all those millions of dollars sloshing around the NGO world and Western
academia – all looking for some study to fund that makes Russia look bad – you are
sure to get plenty of takers. And, we should now expect that new findings like these will fill
in for the so-far evidence-free suspicions about Russia and Trump colluding to steal the
presidency from Hillary Clinton.
If you read more deeply into the Times story, you get a taste of where Russia-gate is headed
next and a clue as to who is behind it:
Since last month, researchers at the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a bipartisan
initiative of the German Marshall Fund, a public policy research group in Washington, have been
publicly tracking 600 Twitter accounts -- human users and suspected bots alike -- they have
linked to Russian influence operations. Those were the accounts pushing the opposing messages
on the N.F.L. and the national anthem.
Of 80 news stories promoted last week by those accounts, more than 25 percent had a primary
theme of anti-Americanism, the researchers found. About 15 percent were critical of Hillary
Clinton, falsely accusing her of funding left-wing antifa -- short for anti-fascist --
protesters, tying her to the lethal terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 and discussing
her daughter Chelseas use of Twitter. Eleven percent focused on wiretapping in the federal
investigation into Paul Manafort, President Trumps former campaign chairman, with most of them
treated the news as a vindication for President Trumps earlier wiretapping claims.
The
Neocons, Again!
So, lets stop and unpack this Times reporting.
First, this Alliance for Securing Democracy is not some neutral truth-seeking organization
but a neoconservative-dominated outfit that includes on its advisory board such neocon
luminaries as Mike Chertoff, Bill Kristol and former Freedom House president David Kramer along
with other anti-Russia hardliners such as former deputy CIA director Michael Morell and former
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers.
Neoconservative pundit William Kristol. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)
How many of these guys, do you think, were assuring us that Iraq was hiding WMDs back in
2003?
This group clearly has an ax to grind, a record of deception, and plenty of patrons in the
Military-Industrial Complex who stand to make billions of dollars from the New Cold War.
The neocons also have been targeting Russia
for regime change for years because they see Russian President Vladimir Putin as the chief
obstacle to their goal of helping Israel achieve its desire for regime change in Syria and a
chance to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran. Russia-gate has served the neocons well as a very convenient way
to pull Democrats, liberals and even progressives into the neocon agenda because Russia-gate is
sold as a powerful weapon for the anti-Trump Resistance.
The Times article also might have mentioned that Twitter has 974 million accounts. So, this
alarm over 600 accounts is a bit disproportionate for a front-page story in the Times, dont you
think?
And, theres the definitional problem of what constitutes anti-Americanism in a news article.
And what does it mean to be linked to Russian influence operations? Does that include Americans
who may not march in lockstep to the one-sided State Department narratives on the crises in
Ukraine and Syria? Any deviation from Official Washingtons groupthink makes you a Moscow
stooge.
And, is it a crime to be critical of Hillary Clinton or to note that the U.S. mainstream
media was dismissive of Trumps claims about being wiretapped only for us to find out later that
the FBI apparently was wiretapping his campaign manager?
However, such questions arent going to be asked amid what has become a massive Russia-gate
groupthink, dominating not just Official Washington, but across much of Americas political
landscape and throughout the European Union.
Why the Bias?
Beyond the obvious political motivations for this bias, we also have had the introduction of
vast sums of money pouring in from the U.S. government, NATO and European institutions to
support the
business of combatting Russian propaganda.
President Obama in the Oval Office.
For example, last December, President Obama signed into law a $160 million funding mechanism
entitled the Combating Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. But that amounts to only a
drop in the bucket considering already existing Western propaganda projects targeting
Russia.
So, a scramble is on to develop seemingly academic models to prove what Western authorities
want proven: that Russia is at fault for pretty much every bad thing that happens in the world,
particularly the alienation of many working-class people from the Washington-Brussels
elites.
The truth cannot be that establishment policies have led to massive income inequality and
left the working class struggling to survive and thus are to blame for ugly political
manifestations – from Trump to Brexit to the surprising support for Germanys far-right
AfD party. No, it must be Russia! Russia! Russia! And theres a lot of money on the bed to prove
that point.
Theres also the fact that the major Western news media is deeply invested in bashing Russia
as well as in the related contempt for Trump and his followers. Those twin prejudices have
annihilated all professional standards that would normally be applied to news judgments
regarding these flawed studies.
On Thursday, The Washington Post ran its own banner-headlined
story drawn from the same loose accusations made by that neocon-led Alliance for Securing
Democracy, but instead the Post sourced the claims to Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma. The
headline read: Russian trolls are stoking NFL controversy, senator says.
The evidence cited by Lankfords office was one Twitter account calling itself Boston Antifa
that gives its geolocation as Vladivostok, Russia, the Post reported.
By Thursday, Twitter had suspended the Boston Antifa account, so I couldnt send it a
question, but earlier this month, Dan Glaun, a reporter for Masslive.com, reported
that the people behind Boston Antifa were a pair of anti-leftist pranksters from Oregon who
started Boston Antifa as a parody of actual anti-fascist groups.
In an email to me on Thursday, Glaun cited an interview that
the Boston Antifa pranksters had done with right-wing radio talk show host Gavin McInnes last
April.
And, by the way, there are apps that let
you manipulate your geolocation data on Twitter. Or, you can choose to believe that the
highly professional Russian intelligence agencies didnt notice that they were telegraphing
their location as Vladivostok.
Mindless Russia Bashing
Another example of this mindless Russia bashing appeared just below the Posts story on
Lankfords remarks. The Post
sidebar cited a study from researchers at Oxford Universitys Project on Computational
Propaganda asserting that junk news on Twitter flowed more heavily in a dozen [U.S.]
battleground states than in the nation overall in the days immediately before and after the
2016 presidential election, suggesting that a coordinated effort targeted the most pivotal
voters. Cue the spooky Boris and Natasha music!
Boris and Natasha, the evil spies from the Rocky and Bullwinkle shows.
Of course, any Americans living in battleground states could tell you that they are
inundated with all kinds of election-related junk, including negative TV advertising, nasty
radio messages, alarmist emails and annoying robo-calls at dinner time. Thats why theyre called
battleground states, Sherlock.
But whats particularly offensive about this study is that it implies that the powers-that-be
must do more to eliminate what these experts deem propaganda and junk news. If you read deeper
into the story, you discover that the researchers applied a very subjective definition of what
constitutes junk news, i.e., information that the researchers dont like even if it is truthful
and newsworthy.
The Post article by Craig Timberg, who
apparently is using Russia-gate to work himself off the business pages and onto the
national staff, states that The researchers defined junk news as propaganda and ideologically
extreme, hyperpartisan, or conspiratorial political news and information.
The researchers also categorized reports from Russia and ones from WikiLeaks – which
published embarrassing posts about Democrat Hillary Clinton based on a hack of her campaign
chairmans emails – as polarizing political content for the purpose of the analysis.
So, this study lumped together junk news with accurate and newsworthy information, i.e.,
WikiLeaks disclosure of genuine emails that contained such valid news as the contents of
Clintons speeches to Wall Street banks (which she was trying to hide from voters) as well as
evidence of the unethical tactics used by the Democratic National Committee to sabotage Sen.
Bernie Sanderss campaign.
Also dumped into the researchers bin of vile disinformation were reports from Russia, as if
everything that comes out of Russia is, ipso facto, junk news.
And, what, pray tell, is conspiratorial political news? I would argue that the past year of
evidence-lite allegations about Russian meddling in the U.S. election accompanied by
unsupported suspicions about collusion with the Trump campaign would constitute conspiratorial
political news. Indeed, I would say that this Oxford research constitutes conspiratorial
political news and that Timbergs article qualifies as junk news.
Predictable Outcome
Given the built-in ideological bias of this research, it probably wont surprise you that the
reports author, Philip N. Howard, concludes that junk news originates from three main sources
that the Oxford group has been tracking: Russian operatives, Trump supporters and activists
part of the alt-right, according to the Post.
The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington
Post)
I suppose that since part of the methodology was to define reports from Russia as junk news,
the appearance of Russian operatives shouldnt be much of a surprise, but the whole process
reeks of political bias.
Further skewing the results, the report separated out information from professional news
organizations [and] political parties from some junk news source, according to the Post. In
other words, the researchers believe that professional news organizations are inherently
reliable and that outside-the-mainstream news is junk – despite the MSMs long record of
getting major stories wrong.
The real junk is this sort of academic or NGO research that starts with a conclusion and
packs a study in such a way as to guarantee the preordained conclusion. Or as the old saying
goes, garbage in, garbage out.
Yet, its also clear that if you generate research that feeds the hungry beast of
Russia-gate, you will find eager patrons doling out dollars and a very receptive audience in
the mainstream media.
In a place like Washington, there are scores if not hundreds of reports generated every day
and only a tiny fraction get the attention of the Times, Post, CNN, etc., let alone result in
published articles. But studies that reinforce todays anti-Russia narrative are sure
winners.
So, if youre setting up a new NGO or youre an obscure academic angling for a lucrative
government grant as well as some flattering coverage in the MSM, the smart play is to join the
new gold rush in decrying Russian propaganda.
1) This is the rise of the Self-Absorbed -- the Narcissist and Sociopath -- to a
critical mass of places of influence and control.
2) Pay attention to and denounce your more local/regional media -- they are in Control
mode, operating in stealth mode, enabling the narrative, in self-preservation.
3) The People are failing. There's no way to recover from that.
They are like termites, they just never go away, but why worry, none of them will ever
be held accountable-meanwhile, they are in the game, making tons. what is not to
like.
Some are also citizens of israel, chertoff for example. I believe he also has a large
security consulting firm;
"heh, here is my card, please call if you are worried about the iranian nuclear
capability."
The dumbmasses will not be able to follow whatever bullshit narrative the deep state
invents to "prove" Russian collusion-hacking-global warming or whatever.
"... A difference, however, from the McCarthyism of the 1950s is that this New McCarthyism has enlisted Democrats, liberals and even progressives in the cause because of their disgust with President Trump; the 1950s version was driven by Republicans and the Right with much of the Left on the receiving end, maligned by the likes of Sen. Joe McCarthy as un-American and as Communisms fellow travelers. ..."
"... The real winners in this New McCarthyism appear to be the neoconservatives who have leveraged the Democratic/liberal hatred of Trump to draw much of the Left into the political hysteria that sees the controversy over alleged Russian political meddling as an opportunity to get Trump. ..."
"... Already, under the guise of combating Russian propaganda and fake news, Google, Facebook and other tech giants have begun introducing algorithms to hunt down and marginalize news that challenges official U.S. government narratives on hot-button issues such as Ukraine and Syria. Again, no evidence is required, just the fact that Putin may have said something similar. ..."
"... The New McCarthyism with its Orwellian-style algorithms might seem like a clever way to neutralize (or maybe even help oust) Trump, but – long after Trump is gone – a structure for letting the neocons and the mainstream media monopolize American political debate might be a far greater threat to both democracy and peace. ..."
Special Report: As the New McCarthyism takes hold in America, the neocon Washington Post
makes Russia the villain in virtually every bad thing that happens, with U.S. dissidents
treated as fellow-travelers, writes Robert Parry.
Make no mistake about it: the United States has entered an era of a New McCarthyism that
blames nearly every political problem on Russia and has begun targeting American citizens who
dont go along with this New Cold War propaganda.
A difference, however, from the McCarthyism of the 1950s is that this New McCarthyism
has enlisted Democrats, liberals and even progressives in the cause because of their disgust
with President Trump; the 1950s version was driven by Republicans and the Right with much of
the Left on the receiving end, maligned by the likes of Sen. Joe McCarthy as un-American and as
Communisms fellow travelers.
The real winners in this New McCarthyism appear to be the neoconservatives who have
leveraged the Democratic/liberal hatred of Trump to draw much of the Left into the political
hysteria that sees the controversy over alleged Russian political meddling as an opportunity to
get Trump.
Already, the neocons and their allies have exploited the anti-Russian frenzy to extract tens
of millions of dollars more from the taxpayers for programs to combat Russian propaganda, i.e.,
funding of non-governmental organizations and scholars who target dissident Americans for
challenging the justifications for this New Cold War.
The Washington Post, which for years has served as the flagship for neocon propaganda, is
again charting the new course for America, much as it did in rallying U.S. public backing for
the 2003 invasion of Iraq and in building sympathy for abortive regime change projects aimed at
Syria and Iran. The Post has begun blaming almost every unpleasant development in the world on
Russia! Russia! Russia!
For instance, a Post
editorial on Tuesday shifted the blame for the anemic victory of German Chancellor Angela
Merkel and the surprising strength of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) from Merkels
austerity policies, which have caused hardship for much of the working class, or from her open
door for Mideast refugees, which has destabilized some working-class neighborhoods, to –
you guessed it – Russia!
The evidence, as usual, is vague and self-interested, but sure to be swallowed by many
Democrats and liberals, who hate Russia because they blame it for Trump, and by lots of
Republicans and conservatives, who have a residual hatred for Russia left over from the Old
Cold War.
The Post cited the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab, which has been pushing
much of the hysteria about alleged Russian activities on the Internet. The Atlantic Council
essentially is NATOs think tank and is financed with
money from the U.S. government, Gulf oil states, military contractors, global financial
institutions and many other sources which stand to gain directly or indirectly from the
expanding U.S. military budget and NATO interventions.
Blaming Russia
In this New Cold War, the Russians get blamed for not only disrupting some neocon regime
change projects, such as the proxy war in Syria, but also political developments in the West,
such as Donald Trumps election and AfDs rise in Germany.
Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN
Photo)
The Atlantic Councils digital lab claimed, according to the Post editorial, that In the
final hours of the [German] campaign, online supporters of the AfD began warning their base of
possible election fraud, and the online alarms were driven by anonymous troll accounts and
boosted by a Russian-language bot-net."
Of course, the Post evinces no evidence tying any of this to the Russian government or to
President Vladimir Putin. It is the nature of McCarthyism that actual evidence is not required,
just heavy breathing and dark suspicions. For those of us who operate Web sites, trolls –
some volunteers and some professionals – have become a common annoyance and they
represent many political outlooks, not just Russian.
Plus, it is standard procedure these days for campaigns to issue last-minute alarms to their
supporters about possible election fraud to raise doubts about the results should the outcome
be disappointing.
The U.S. government has engaged in precisely this strategy around the world, having pro-U.S.
parties not only complain about election fraud but to take to the streets in violent protests
to impugn the legitimacy of election outcomes. That U.S. strategy has been applied to places
such as Ukraine (the Orange Revolution in 2004); Iran (the Green Revolution in 2009); Russia
(the Snow Revolution in 2011); and many other locations.
Pre-election alerts also have become a feature in U.S. elections, even in 2016 when both
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton raised questions about the legitimacy of the balloting, albeit
for different reasons.
Yet, instead of seeing the AfD maneuver as a typical ploy by a relatively minor party
– and the German election outcome as an understandable reflection of voter discontent and
weariness over Merkels three terms as Chancellor – the Atlantic Council and the Post see
Russians under every bed and particularly Putin.
Loving to Hate Putin
In the world of neocon propaganda, Putin has become the great bête noire, since he has
frustrated a variety of neocon schemes. He helped head off a major U.S. military strike against
Syria in 2013; he aided President Obama in achieving the Iran nuclear agreement in 2014-15;
Putin opposed and – to a degree – frustrated the neocon-supported coup in Ukraine
in 2014; and he ultimately supplied the air power that defeated neocon-backed rebel forces in
Syria in 2015-17.
President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the
G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security
Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
So, the Post and the neocons want Putin gone – and they have used gauzy allegations
about Russian meddling in the U.S. and other elections as the new propaganda theme to justify
destabilizing Russia with economic sanctions and, if possible, engineering another regime
change project in Moscow.
None of this is even secret. Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the
U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, publicly proclaimed the
goal of ousting Putin in an op-ed in The Washington Post, writing: The United States has
the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do
so.
But the way neocon propaganda works is that the U.S. and its allies are always the victims
of some nefarious enemy who must be thwarted to protect all that is good in the world. In other
words, even as NED and other U.S.-funded operations take aim at Putin and Russia, Russia and
Putin must be transformed into the aggressors.
Mr. Putin would like nothing better than to generate doubts, fog, cracks and uncertainty
around the German pillar of Europe, the Post editorial said. He relishes infiltrating chaos and
mischief into open societies. In this case, supporting the far-right AfD is extraordinarily
cynical, given how many millions of Russians died to defeat the fascists seven decades ago.
Not to belabor the point but there is no credible evidence that Putin did any of this. There
is a claim by the virulently anti-Russian Atlantic Council that some anonymous troll accounts
promoted some AfD complaint about possible voter fraud and that it was picked up by a
Russian-language bot-net. Even if that is true – and the Atlantic Council is far from an
objective source – where is the link to Putin?
Not everything that happens in Russia, a nation of 144 million people, is ordered by Putin.
But the Post would have you believe that it is. It is the centerpiece of this neocon conspiracy
theory.
Silencing Dissent
Similarly, any American who questions this propaganda immediately is dismissed as a Kremlin
stooge or a Russian propagandist, another ugly campaign
spearheaded by the Post and the neocons. Again, no evidence is required, just some analysis
that what youre saying somehow parallels something Putin has said.
The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington
Post)
On Tuesday, in what amounted to a companion piece for the editorial, a Post
article again pushed the unproven
suspicions about Russian operatives buying $100,000 in Facebook ads from 2015 into 2017 to
supposedly influence U.S. politics. Once again, no evidence required.
In the article, the Post also reminds its readers that Moscow has a history of focusing on
social inequities in the U.S., which gets us back to the comparisons between the Old
McCarthyism and the new.
Yes, its true that the Soviet Union denounced Americas racial segregation and cited that
ugly feature of U.S. society in expressing solidarity with the American civil rights movement
and national liberation struggles in Africa. Its also true that American Communists
collaborated with the domestic civil rights movement to promote racial integration.
That was a key reason why J. Edgar Hoovers FBI targeted Martin Luther King Jr. and other
African-American leaders – because of their association with known or suspected
Communists. (Similarly, the Reagan administration resisted support for Nelson Mandela because
his African National Congress accepted Communist support in its battle against South Africas
Apartheid white-supremacist regime.)
Interestingly, one of the arguments from liberal national Democrats in opposing segregation
in the 1960s was that the repression of American blacks undercut U.S. diplomatic efforts to
develop allies in Africa. In other words, Soviet and Communist criticism of Americas
segregation actually helped bring about the demise of that offensive system.
Yet, Kings association with alleged Communists remained a talking point of die-hard
segregationists even after his assassination when they opposed creating a national holiday in
his honor in the 1980s.
These parallels between the Old McCarthyism and the New McCarthyism are implicitly
acknowledged in the Posts news article on Tuesday, which cites Putins criticism of police
killings of unarmed American blacks as evidence that he is meddling in U.S. politics.
Since taking office, Putin has on occasion sought to spotlight racial tensions in the United
States as a means of shaping perceptions of American society, the article states. Putin
injected himself in 2014 into the race debate after protests broke out in Ferguson, Mo., over
the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an African American, by a white police officer.
'Do you believe that everything is perfect now from the point of view of democracy in the
United States? Putin told CBSs 60 Minutes program. If everything was perfect, there wouldnt be
the problem of Ferguson. There would be no abuse by the police. But our task is to see all
these problems and respond properly."
The Posts speculative point seems to be that Putins response included having Russian
operatives buy some ads on Facebook to exploit these racial tensions, but there is no evidence
to support that conspiracy theory.
However, as this anti-Russia hysteria spreads, we may soon see Americans who also protest
the police killing of unarmed black men denounced as Putins fellow-travelers, much as King and
other civil rights leaders were smeared as Communist dupes.
Ignoring Reality
So, instead of Democrats and Chancellor Merkel looking in the mirror and seeing the real
reasons why many white working-class voters are turning toward populist and extremist
alternatives, they can simply blame Putin and continue a crackdown on Internet-based dissent as
the work of Russian operatives.
Already, under the guise of combating Russian propaganda and fake news, Google, Facebook
and other tech giants have begun introducing algorithms to hunt
down and marginalize news that challenges official U.S. government narratives on hot-button
issues such as Ukraine and Syria. Again, no evidence is required, just the fact that Putin may
have said something similar.
As Democrats, liberals and even some progressives join in this Russia-gate hysteria –
driven by their hatred of Donald Trump and his supposedly fascistic tendencies – they
might want to consider whom theyve climbed into bed with and what these neocons have in mind
for the future.
Arguably, if fascism or totalitarianism comes to the United States, it is more likely to
arrive in the guise of protecting democracy from Russia or another foreign adversary than from
a reality-TV clown like Donald Trump.
The New McCarthyism with its Orwellian-style algorithms might seem like a clever way to
neutralize (or maybe even help oust) Trump, but – long after Trump is gone – a
structure for letting the neocons and the mainstream media monopolize American political debate
might be a far greater threat to both democracy and peace.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, Americas Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
SteveK9 , September 26, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Its been going on since the arrival of the national security state after World War II. At
least for decades there really was a contest between Capitalism and Communism, not that it
excuses the lying and killing of millions. Now, its just a we rule the World habit. Is it
really getting worse? Perhaps so.
Erik G , September 26, 2017 at 7:17 pm
I would say that the dominance of economic power over democratic institutions has been
completely consolidated since WWII, accelerated under Reagan and after the collapse of the
USSR, and has been completed since 911. The articles conclusion that letting mainstream media
monopolize American political debate is a greater threat than Trump is quite an
understatement, appropriate to new readers.
More even than economic power (banks?) it is the intelligence agencies (all revolving
around the CIA) and the military-industrial complex. We could make progress in a lot of areas
if we could simply stop waging war, overt or covert, but it doesnt seem possible, partly
because the Deep State has become smart enough not to wage a war that requires a draft or
kills too many Americans. Its OK to spend trillions though, especially since having the
Worlds reserve currency allows us to create as much as we need.
Dave P. , September 27, 2017 at 11:41 am
SteveK9 – Your comments: Its OK to spend trillions though, especially since having
the Worlds reserve currency allows us to create as much as we need.
That is how we suck the blood of the people of the World beyond the Wests borders –
by printing unlimited money, using cheap labor, taking over and exploiting their
resources.
The oppressed have also to pay to the oppressor for their own subjugation. That is how we
maintain our grand life style – as they boast every day on TV channels and elsewhere
– for the top 10%.
During the Soviet days, USSR was a hindrance to this Western Imperialism. And now again
some how it turns out that Russia is again becoming the protector of the Oppressed –
though they have themselves a kind of makeshift type of Capitalism at this stage.
Sam F , September 27, 2017 at 5:50 pm
The complete economic power of oligarchy (zionists/MIC/WallSt/corporations) over Congress,
judiciary, federal agencies, and mass media, results in thedeep state structure. Doubtless
there is further deep state gangsterism.
The US has been dominated by the economic power that arose in the 19th century, because
the emerging middle class failed to see that this would corrupt democratic institutions if
not severely regulated, and of course oligarchy soon controlled the press and excluded the
issue from public debate.
Kiza , September 26, 2017 at 9:09 pm
I find it truly fascinating that the US Deep State has changed the narrative through its
liberal MSM mouthpieces, since Zuckcrook $100K ad saga, that the Russian goal was not so much
to elect President Swamp then to saw chaos and discord in US. Let us look at the hidden
meaning of this:
1) the Deep State feels confident that President Swamp has been brought under control; only
the quasi-liberal wing of the Deep State still wants to impeach him (fat chance now that he
is well under control, if he ever was not yet another faux agent of change –
YAFAOC)
2) the rulers are truly concerned about the forthcoming challenge to their rule, which would
begin as unrest, chaos and possibly a civil war; ironically they are delivering a very
powerful tool to Putin by establishing parallels between US sedition and Putins words; this
means that, if he wanted, Putin could just state some obvious criticisms, a sore point of the
US/Global system and this becomes a point of oppression in US; such oppression can ultimately
have only one outcome for the oppressors.
In brief, it is always useful to monitor the official statements to deduce what is on the
rulers minds. They do not appear terribly self confident with their Putin ate my homework
stories. Putin is both the leader of the hated Eurasia and Putins face is morphing into
the face of the internal enemy Emanuel Goldstein .
Peter Loeb , September 27, 2017 at 7:22 am
STEVEK9
An excellent comment, Stevek9.
To continue responding is to play by the McCarthyist rules. Do I want
to circulate Robert Parrys excellent article (for the most part)? There
would be a collective reply that :the Russians are coming and a
groupthink diversions from WHAT the issues really are (oppression of
blacks in the US -- the real point of the NFL -- discussions usually hidden
under Do you like Trump?Do you hate Russia?And thus not
addressed or an article in Consortium yesterday on the Palestine/
Israeli conflict which was responded to mainly in terms of what
the Russians are doing etc. etc.
I remember the McCarthy era. My Dad had to sign a loyalty
oath. There were other forms such as the Harry Trumans
the Attorney Generals list, The Truman Doctrine, domino
theories etc.
The late historian Gabriel Kolko discussed this in the subsection
Violence and Social Control of his major work MAIN CURRENTS
IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY (part of Chapter 5 of that work).
No one is talking about the raw courage of so many black players
(mostly) who suddenly step away from their roles as entertainers
of the American society to remind us all that the US is considering
the murder of unarmed blacks as patriotic…heroic.
Instead, the issue is President Donald Trump and I can guess
that , like Hitler and Mussolini, he loves it with a passion.
What a dirty shame that in the US blacks demonstrating for
justice, for life, are attacked by police funded by the US
via private organizations such as those of Israel which provide
their particular expertise in how to oppress minorities --
accompanied by junkets for US law enforcement officials
for training in the Israeli efficiency in murder, oppression,
and inhuman treatment of those Zionists consider inferior
if human at all.
Dont read the above if you fear that its all the
fault of the Russians.
In French one once said Le revolution se mange..
(The revolution eats itself (se))
-- –Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Susan Sunflower , September 27, 2017 at 12:12 pm
Yes, I think the Woodrow Wilson 14-point plan legacy of helping to keep most of Europe
from going communist or trying to do so is overlooked For all of Wilsons lies, deals and
broken promises, I think his inclusive idealistic promise to ordinary people that is still
felt today (and may provide some of the origin of American accepted world leadership in
anti-communism). European democratic socialism arose to quell the unrest, expectations and
dissatisfaction of those same people after the fall of the empires. Remember all those Frank
Capra movies in which Americanism was a non-communist path to egalitarian future. (yes, Capra
was an anti-communist)
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security reversed course Tuesday
and told Wisconsin officials that the Russian government did not scan the states voter
registration system.
Homeland Security told state elections officials on Friday that Wisconsin was one of 21
states targeted by the Russians, raising concerns about the safety and security of the
states election systems even though no data had been compromised. But in an email to the
states deputy elections administrator that was provided to reporters at the Wisconsin
Elections Commission meeting on Tuesday, Homeland Security said that initial notice was in
error.
Based on our external analysis, the WI IP address affected belongs to the WI Department
of Workforce Development, not the Elections Commission, said the email from Juan Figueroa,
with Homeland Securitys Office of Infrastructure Protection.
It wasnt immediately known if Homeland Security made similar mistakes with any of the
other 20 states. Figueroa did not immediately reply to an email seeking an explanation of
how the mistake was made.
Dr. Ip , September 26, 2017 at 6:28 pm
Ive lived in Germany for over 30 years now, and what has been clear since the infamous
Agenda 2010 introduced during the reign of the SPD government under Schroeder, and the
reforms introduced by pseudo-Socialist governments in France, is that the same right wing
forces that have captured the US, Poland, Hungary and are threatening France and Spain, have
their roots (and subtle support) from the neoliberals preoccupied with wealth creation for
the few and the destruction of the social net for the many.
Endless war – a perpetuum mobile cash machine – and the attempt to actually
own the whole world, has led to a situation that is an updated version of the corporatist
fascism of the 30s and 40s. Destruction of the Left is acceptable because it clears a path
toward endless profit, and arousal of the Right is seen as profit-beneficial because the
uneducated masses that comprise this sector are in love with the illusion of one day
belonging to a group that will allow them to achieve wealth and power. Of course it never
will. But the unleashing of their anger and violence against all those perceived as superior,
especially in intelligence, allows them a catharsis of blood and death which eventually
consumes them.
People who are registered democrats often see the party as liberal, when in fact it is
not. Under Bill Clintons administration the party was pushed even further to the right. I
know many democrats who define themselves as progressive or liberals, and have bought into
the nonsense that Russia rigged the US election. I never perceived these people as
progressive, or liberal and most kept their mouths shut throughout the Obama administration,
although he engaged in policies, and practices that no real progressive, or liberal would, or
should find acceptable. If they were liberal or progressive in their thinking why would they
be so vulnerable to propaganda? Why would they be so easily manipulated if they were truly
progressive in their thinking, or not be able to see things from a broader perspective? To me
many democrats simply hate Trump, and cant accept that their whining, war candidate lost. And
how can you define yourself as progressive when you supported Hillary Clinton in the first
place? We should be careful how we use the word liberal, or progressive. It was under the
Obama administration that the new cold war really got underway.
Realist , September 27, 2017 at 8:43 am
What you are saying is so true, Annie, but far too many people allow these truths to be
obscured by the stereotypes they would rather cling to. I look at Obama as the great betrayer
of liberal or progressive causes. He was about as progressive as a Wall Street banker
investing his yearly bonus on choice foreclosed properties, or Mitt Romney picking the bones
of companies he buys to strip of assets.
Susan Sunflower , September 26, 2017 at 7:18 pm
Recommend Richard Wolfe on fire on RT tonight -- are we at the end of capitalism . cant
find a link to youtube.. but while this new mccarthyism hysteria probably (not) the sort of
death-throes ravings what one might hope for the reality is that we are past pablum,
nostrums, teaks and fixes -- none of which are still operative
Wolfe here is in fine form .
D5-5 , September 26, 2017 at 7:50 pm
b who runs the Moon of Alabama site has a similar view to Parrys on the WAPOs view of the
German election (and as always comments recommended):
"... Lets assume for a moment that the basic claim is true, although so far the actual evidence indicates a tiny propaganda operation in the scale of things. If its true, the conclusion it points to is: American voters are morons who can be gamed into doing anything by anyone with the ability to buy ads on Facebook and Twitter. ..."
"... I didnt say that. Russian hackers didnt say that, at least in public. Thats what the propagators of the new Red Scare are claiming. ..."
"... If the American electorate is really as abjectly stupid as the blame the Russians crowd insists, it seems to me that instead of blaming the Russians, they should get to work on either making the electorate smarter or coming up with a system that doesnt leave important political decisions in the hands of the gullible. Just sayin ..."
And US Senator James Lankford (R-OK) thinks that the Russians and their troll farms (as opposed
to Donald Trump and professional football players)
are behind the current take a knee kerfuffle between Donald Trump and professional football players.
Because, you know, Americans never had rowdy disagreements with each other over race and religion
until last year, and wouldnt be having them now if not for those dirty, no-good Russian hackers who
stole the 2016 presidential election from the second most hated candidate in history, on behalf of
the most hated candidate in history, operating through subterfuge to achieve the outcome that some
of us predicted months in advance, long before anyone mentioned Russian hackers.
*
Evidence? Who needs evidence? The people who hated the outcome and have been railing against it
for nearly a year now have told us what happened, and why, and whodunit, and theyd never lie to us
about something like that, would they? They lied about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction,
and about illegal wiretapping by the NSA, and about a thousand other things, but THIS is DIFFERENT.
Keep in mind that when all the most wild and baseless accusations (e.g. that !THEM RUSSIANS! hacked
the voting machines) are discarded, the basic claim remaining is this: By spreading fake news through
social media, !THEM RUSSIANS! fooled a bunch of Americans into voting the wrong way.
Lets assume for a moment that the basic claim is true, although so far the actual evidence
indicates a tiny propaganda operation in the scale of things. If its true, the conclusion it points
to is: American voters are morons who can be gamed into doing anything by anyone with the ability
to buy ads on Facebook and Twitter.
I didnt say that. Russian hackers didnt say that, at least in public. Thats what the propagators
of the new Red Scare are claiming.
If the American electorate is really as abjectly stupid as the blame the Russians crowd insists,
it seems to me that instead of blaming the Russians, they should get to work on either making the
electorate smarter or coming up with a system that doesnt leave important political decisions in
the hands of the gullible. Just sayin
*In May of 2016, I predicted that Donald Trump would carry every state Mitt Romney carried in
2012, plus Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. I didnt predict Wisconsin and Iowa, but 48 of
50 states from six months out aint too shabby, is it?
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the
William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian
Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted
with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
"... There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born IT specialists are selected and vetted prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals to keep working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under investigation has to be explained beyond Wasserman-Schultz's comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would expect congressmen to err on the side of caution over an issue that could easily have national security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran Awan wind up with a high-priced Clinton-connected lawyer to defend himself? ..."
"... As the story involves possible espionage, fraud and even something new to consider regarding the theft of information from the DNC server, one might have expected the Fourth Estate to wake from its slumber and take notice. But perhaps not surprisingly there has been astonishingly little follow-up in the mainstream media about the Awan family, possibly because it involves some leading Democrats, though the Daily Caller ..."
"... In a surprise development, investigative journalists have also determined that Imran Awan retained as of the end of August a still-active secret, numeric email account on the House of Representatives server. E-mail accounts in Congress normally are labeled using the holder's name, so all active accounts are identity-linked as a security measure. In this case the numeric account was linked to the actual account of a House staffer who works on national security issues for Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana. Imran Awan clearly has been using the anonymous House of Representatives address as it was cited in a suit filed by a landlord seeking unpaid rent on an apartment rented for his second wife in Alexandria. ..."
"... The most significant recent development in the Awan case is, however, the decision made by Imran's wife Alvi to return to the United States at the end of this month. She has been charged as a co-conspirator relating to the bank fraud that her husband was also involved in, which potentially could result in some jail time. There are, however, reports that she has been interviewed several times in Pakistan by FBI agents and has apparently agreed to a plea bargain to tell all she knows about what went on with the Awan family. Some on Capitol Hill believe that what she knows could prove to be explosive, not only regarding the lax security practices in Congress but also in terms of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's negligence in providing access to the DNC server. The actual whereabouts of the large quantity of stolen government documents might also be resolved. ..."
"... Something about this is strange. It is as if Imran Awan and his group were not really hired for IT purposes.It is perhaps noteworthy that Pakistani spooks have been intertwined with American events for years. For example, there was a Pakistani connection to 9/11. ..."
"... how can one leverage content in this day and age if there is no thorough knowledge of the tools behind any information system. Put congressmen and women to the test, how many have questions as use of data protocol, firewall, ports, delegated to "specialist", and loyal (the accent on loyal) collaborators without a notion of what they even delegate. If living in an area of specialization, the notion of minimal knowledge and comprehension might be at least a thorough understanding of man – machine correlations. ..."
"... Hillarious Hillary neither, did have a notion of any technicalities of tools applied to bid her interests. ..."
"... The phenomenon will worsen, the glue will thicken into further layers of ignorance. The Moore law? The more complex society, the bigger the ignorance of the elites. ..."
"... This is big. I would like to know, what are Awans credentials that qualified him for the IT position and who hired him? Someone had to vouchsafe for Awan and who is that person? Who approved his salary and why was there no review or audit? Apparently, someone, or some organization wanted to control a large block of the Congress. ..."
"... Audacity and chutzpah of Imran Awan's operation right away made me think of post-military service Israeli youth running various scams and intelligence gathering errands all over the world. ..."
I wrote an article on the strange case
of Imran Awan about two months ago. To summarize it briefly, Awan, his two brothers and wife,
naturalized U.S. citizens born in Pakistan living in the Washington DC area, found employment
as IT administrators in the House of Representatives working for as many as
80 Democratic Party congressmen . Even though they may have had little actual training in
IT, they insinuated themselves into the system and were paid in excess of $5 million over the
course of ten years, chief-of-staff level pay, while frequently not even showing up for work.
They even brought into the arrangement a frequent no-show Pakistani friend whose prior work
history consisted of getting recently
fired by McDonald's .
Along the way, their security files were never reviewed. They were involved in bankruptcies,
bank fraud and other criminal activity, but their troublesome behavior was never noticed. They
were on bad terms with their father and step-mother, which including forging a document to
cheat their step-mother of an insurance payment and even holding her "captive" so she could not
see their dying father. Their father even changed his last name to dissociate himself from
them.
Imran Awan, the leader of the group, worked particularly for Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz, who was, at the time, also the Chairman of the Democratic National
Committee. Though he had no clearance and was not supposed to work with classified material, he
and his family obtained password access to congressional files and Imran himself was able to
enter Wasserman-Schultz's own personal iPad computer which linked to the server used by the
Democratic National Committee.
As of February 2016, the Awans
came under suspicion by the Capitol Hill Police for having set up an operation involving
double billing as well as the possible theft and reselling of government owned computer
equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of
Representatives' computer network as well as to other information in the individual offices'
separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed to access. It was also believed
that Imran sent "massive" quantities of stolen government files
to a remote personal server . It may have been located in his former residence in Lorton,
Virginia. The police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that
there might be a problem. Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but
Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after he was actually arrested.
Imran was arrested on July 25 th at Dulles Airport as he was flying to Pakistan
to join his wife Alvi, who had left the country with their children and many of their
possessions in March. In January, they had also wired to Pakistan $283,000 that they had
obtained fraudulently from the Congressional credit union. After his arrest, Imran was defended
by lawyer Chris
Gowen , a high-priced $1,000 an hour Washington attorney who has worked for the Clintons
personally, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.
There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born
IT specialists are selected and vetted prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to
work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals to keep
working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under
investigation has to be explained beyond Wasserman-Schultz's
comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would
expect congressmen to err on the side of caution over an issue that could easily have national
security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran Awan wind up with
a high-priced Clinton-connected lawyer to defend himself?
As the story involves possible espionage, fraud and even something new to consider regarding
the theft of information from the DNC server, one might have expected the Fourth Estate to wake
from its slumber and take notice. But perhaps not surprisingly there has been astonishingly
little follow-up in the mainstream media about the Awan family, possibly because it involves
some leading Democrats, though the Daily Caller and some other conservative sites have
stayed on top of developments.
Since his arrest Imran Awan has had his passports confiscated by the court and has been
released on bail on condition that he wear an ankle monitor at all times and not travel more
than 50 miles from the Virginia home where he is staying with a relative. In early September,
he sought to have the monitor removed and his passports returned so he could travel to Pakistan
and visit his children. His plea was rejected. He is not yet scheduled for trial on the
allegations of bank fraud and is apparently still under investigation by the Bureau relating to
other possible charges, including possible espionage. His four accomplices are also still under
investigation but have not been charged. They are on a watch list and will not be allowed to
leave the United States while the inquiry is continuing.
It has also been learned that Imran had been on the receiving end of
complaints filed with the Fairfax County Virginia police in 2015-6 by two women who resided
in separate apartments in Alexandria that are reportedly paid for by Imran Awan. Both of the
women complained of abuse and one is believed to be a "second wife" for Imran Awan, legal in
Pakistan but illegal in the United States. Imran reportedly divorced his second wife shortly
after his arrest.
In a surprise development, investigative journalists have also determined that Imran Awan
retained as of the end of August a still-active secret,
numeric email account on the House of Representatives server. E-mail accounts in Congress
normally are labeled using the holder's name, so all active accounts are identity-linked as a
security measure. In this case the numeric account was linked to the actual account of a House
staffer who works on national security issues for Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana. Imran
Awan clearly has been using the anonymous House of Representatives address as it was cited in a
suit filed by a landlord seeking unpaid rent on an apartment rented for his second wife in
Alexandria.
The most significant recent development in the Awan case is, however, the
decision made by Imran's wife Alvi to return to the United States at the end of this month.
She has been charged as a co-conspirator relating to the bank fraud that her husband was also
involved in, which potentially could result in some jail time. There are, however, reports that
she has been interviewed several times in Pakistan by FBI agents and has apparently agreed to a
plea bargain to tell all she knows about what went on with the Awan family. Some on Capitol
Hill believe that what she knows could prove to be explosive, not only regarding the lax
security practices in Congress but also in terms of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's negligence in
providing access to the DNC server. The actual whereabouts of the large quantity of stolen
government documents might also be resolved.
This story, which is still unfolding, continues to have the potential to blow wide open the
complacent culture on Capitol Hill and it also might ruin the reputations of a number of
leading Democrats. Stay tuned!
Something about this is strange. It is as if Imran Awan and his group were not really
hired for IT purposes.It is perhaps noteworthy that Pakistani spooks have been intertwined with American events
for years. For example, there was a Pakistani connection to 9/11.
There is a Pakistani connection to CIA and related sorts of things. One wonders what kind
of work these Pakistanis were really doing for Wasserman-Schultz and others involved ! and
what kind of things Debbie and the Americans she is connected to are involved in.
Of course, it could have the potential of a massive scandal, but If the inner circles of
the Dems, especially the criminal machinations of the Clintons and their stooges are
concerned, the mainstream media will keep mum. So far, they have always covered up their
dubious and dirty tricks. The American political system within the Beltway is so rotten and
corrupt that everybody will be affected if the slightest connection comes to the fore. Take
the so-called Russian hacking as a case in point. It's all bogus, but the investigation
continues by the Clinton stooge named Robert Mueller.
The US establishment reminds me of a poorly knitted jumper with many threads sticking out.
So it desperately prevents, using the intelligence services, the police and the media it
controls, any investigation because if one would pull one thread successfully the whole thing
would unravel in its full perverted glory of deprevity (the whole Demopublican establishment
that is).
No surprises, the quality of politicians worldwide is embedded in the system. The question
asked: how can a meritocracy apply extended family, friend and sex-mates, to the selection
system consequently. Another, how can one leverage content in this day and age if there
is no thorough knowledge of the tools behind any information system. Put congressmen and
women to the test, how many have questions as use of data protocol, firewall, ports,
delegated to "specialist", and loyal (the accent on loyal) collaborators without a notion of
what they even delegate. If living in an area of specialization, the notion of minimal
knowledge and comprehension might be at least a thorough understanding of man – machine
correlations.
Hillarious Hillary neither, did have a notion of any technicalities of tools applied to
bid her interests. "Boom", "Boom", "oBama", was using computers to play "drone of doom".
Politicians dress, groom, prepare and travel to public moments of extroversion, and that's
it. Very busy critters, highly un-focused beyond anything deeper then egocentric looks and
sway of an actor. It works, there is a public, "deplorable", "gens de rien" ignorance
carrying them, complicit media and scientists, sustaining them. The phenomenon will worsen,
the glue will thicken into further layers of ignorance. The Moore law? The more complex
society, the bigger the ignorance of the elites.
A suggestive test: time employment over years in office would uproot the sterling
conclusion that politicians, administrators of public affairs have simply no time and energy
left to analyze anything beyond their public person's direct interests. Systemic, in all
branches, our elites are simply not up to par. And that "works", in occurrence the state of
affairs worldwide, in the long term, in depth.
For those who are unfamiliar with US involvement in South Asia: Pakistan's military and
intelligences services are funded by America (just as Egypt's are). Pakistani intelligence
and army has long been a CIA stooge and that goes since the 80s and even before that. It was
Pakistanis who were training the mujahideen to fight Russia in Afghanistan during the cold
war. So no one is surprised when Pakistani ISI chief is here in US during the execution of
9/11. Throughout much of the world, 9/11 is seen as a plot of American government.
By the way, do you seriously think Pakistani army which survives on American funding would
bite the hand that feeds it by secretly giving refuge to Osama Bin Laden? If that was truly
the case, as government said during their s0-called raid in Pakistan that supposedly killed
Osama, would the US government still be giving billions to Pakistan's army? Pakistan's army,
like Egypt's army and Turkey's army, are supported by America as a way of subverting
democracy in those countries. Unfotunately American public's general knowledge of what
America funds and how it conducts itself with other countries is so low that it is impossible
for the majority to have any kind of reality based understanding of what their taxes are
paying for and how it does not support "freedom" but the opposite of it throughout the
world
This is big. I would like to know, what are Awans credentials that qualified him for the
IT position and who hired him? Someone had to vouchsafe for Awan and who is that person? Who
approved his salary and why was there no review or audit? Apparently, someone, or some
organization wanted to control a large block of the Congress. Was it Clinton, was it
Intelligence, the Mossad, Rothschilds, Russia?
I would imagine that her calls were being
monitored and her involvement known.
Audacity and chutzpah of Imran Awan's operation right away made me think of post-military
service Israeli youth running various scams and intelligence gathering errands all over the
world. Only people with a strong awareness of being the untouchable sacred cows and/or
somebody with a strong back up of security services can behave like this.
Each year, 75,000 soldiers are discharged from the Israel Defense Force. A third of them
then travel across Asia and South America, supporting businesses at home and abroad.
"... Anyway, the whole Russiagate thing will either explode into nothing or drift off into nothing. Why? Because there's no "there" there. ALL just fabricated hype. Too many people fall prey to surmises and suggestions and baseless conclusions. ..."
"... Read Robert Parry, and, please, interview him and others from consortiumnews.com , my best go to source for truth. Thanks for this interview with Max, a man I greatly admire. ..."
"... Fabricated hype yes, but for what reason? The last thing the 'elites' want is Trump making friends with Russia, they are scared it would expose their NATO scam. No enemies = no money for MIC! ..."
"... Neocons make military war while neoliberals make economic war. Neither group makes any sense and both groups are destroying the human race with synthetic ideologies based on nothing but greed, fear, hatred and greed. Both groups represent extreme wealth and the project to enslave and impoverish the whole world. It's them or us and so far we're clueless ..."
"... Right on, and well said Max! Now then, we know who the neocons are, nastiness is embedded in their DNA and makeup. I could go and on to an eternity, using a plethora of adjectives to describe their repugnant ideas and beliefs; but I won't. ..."
"... SCAM is the correct word. Now after failing to get a Russian "hack" dismissed by former CIA & NSA experts and Wikileaks (Never lied yet to my knowledge) NOW we get Russian FB accounts ( most of which have nothing to do with clinton). ..."
The promotional video of the Committee to Investigate Russia features actor Morgan Freeman
in what is 'probably his worst role since Driving Miss Daisy,' says AlterNet's Max
Blumenthal
Outside the government, there's a lot of going on, too. Media outlets and liberal
organizations have devoted extensive time and energy to Russiagate. This week, a new group
joined the fray. It's called the Committee to Investigate Russia. Its board includes Rob
Reiner, the well-known actor, producer, and liberal activist, and several right-wing pundits,
including David Frum, the man who coined George W. Bush's infamous phrase, the 'axis of
evil.'
The committee's kickoff video features the actor Morgan Freeman.
MORGAN FREEMAN: We have been attacked. We are at war. We need our president to speak
directly to us and tell us the truth. We need him to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office and
say, "My fellow Americans, during this past election, we came under attack by the Russian
government. I've called on the Congress and our intelligence community to use every resource
available to conduct a thorough investigation to determine exactly how this happened. The free
world is counting on us for leadership. For 241 years, our democracy has been a shining example
to the world of what we can all aspire to, and we owe it to the brave people who have fought
and died to protect this great nation and save democracy, and we owe it to our future
generations, to continue the fight."
VOICEOVER: Join the Committee to Investigate Russia. Join the fight.
AARON MATE: Joining me is Max Blumenthal, bestselling author, journalist, senior editor of
AlterNet's Grayzone Project, and cohost of the new podcast Moderate Rebels. Max, welcome. I'm
going to predict that you're not joining this fight.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: This is sad. It's sad for Morgan Freeman, and I think whatever you think
about Russia, you can agree with me that this is probably his worst role since Driving Miss
Daisy. Now he's driving, basically, the PNAC train, Project for a New American Century, driving
the neocons. This is highly unusual for me, maybe I'm wrong here, to hear a black American say
that America has been a shining example of democracy for 241 years. It sounds like something a
neocon would write in a script and put for Morgan Freeman in a teleprompter. 200 years ago, or
longer, he would have been scrubbing Thomas Jefferson's chamberpot, so this is just deeply
disturbing American exceptionalism.
Beyond that, Morgan Freeman has basically been brought into this by Rob Reiner, who's been
brought in by a cast of neocons, not just unindicted Iraq War criminal David Frum, who crafted
the axis of evil phrase, which has helped spread instability and death around the world, but
Max Boot, the neoconservative pundit and self-styled historian who's never met a war he didn't
like. We also have James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence and NSA director
affiliated with this group, the Committee to Investigate Russia. Max Boot is a fellow at the
Institute for the Study of War, which is run by Kimberly Kagan, who's part of the
neoconservative Kagan dynasty. The Institute for the Study of War is funded primarily by the
arms industry and surveillance industry, and their job is basically to gin up wars and consult
for generals, and make a windfall profit in the process.
That's what the Committee to Investigate Russia is about. It brings this Hollywood element
to it. Rob Reiner's involvement helps get David Frum on CNN and a host of radio and MSNBC
programs. It almost makes a neocon like him seem likable, although he and Max Boot were
welcomed with open arms by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, so in many ways we're
experiencing still the toxic alluvia of the Clinton camp with this bizarre initiative.
We have to first ask, what is the Committee to Investigate Russia? It reminds me of the
Committee on the Present Danger, which was a Cold War collection of neoconservatives, as well
as the Project for a New American Century, which was a larger conglomeration of
neoconservatives looking to take advantage of the post-Cold War atmosphere to gin up a war on
terror. What they said in their initial document was that, "Short of a catalyzing event, we
won't be able to realize our goals." Three years later, 9/11 happened, and that was the
catalyzing event.
They are attempting to manufacture a catalyzing event through the narrative of Trump-Russia
collusion in order to ramp up hostilities with Russia, not just in Russia's near abroad in
Ukraine, but also in Syria and across the world. This is an incredibly dangerous prospect.
AARON MATE: There was a piece today in the Daily Beast picking up on this Facebook story,
which you and I haven't discussed yet on the Real News, but it's gotten a lot of attention. A
few weeks ago, Facebook disclosed that some $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads by suspected
Russian accounts that may be tied to the Kremlin. It was a bit ambiguous. Most of the ads were
in 2015, a year before the election, and most of the ads, Facebook said, were not even directly
to do with the election but about divisive social issues. This was taken as another new level
of Russian influence in the U.S.
Just today, on the Daily Beast, which has been all over this story, there's an exclusive
story written by four reporters. A team of four reporters writes, "Exclusive. Russians appear
to use Facebook to push Trump rallies in 17 U.S. cities." Subheading is, "Being Patriotic, a
Facebook group uncovered by the Daily Beast, is the first evidence of suspected Russian
provocateurs explicitly mobilizing Trump supporters in real life."
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Maybe it's true. Maybe these four reporters found something that might be
true, but if you read into the ninth paragraph of that article, like so many articles about
Russiagate, these four reporters, the finest minds of the Daily Beast, including Spencer
Ackerman, who wrote the foreword to Russiagate huckster Malcolm Nance's book on how the
election was stolen, and I think his book might have come out before the election was decided,
if you read into the ninth paragraph that the story is not confirmed, that Facebook explicitly
states that it cannot confirm that any of these accounts are Russian accounts. Throughout the
article, the authors are forced to refer to them as suspected Russian accounts. I don't know
how this got past an editor, except that there is so much zeal at the Daily Beast to keep up
the Trump-Russia collusion narrative that generates clicks.
That's the same, I would assume, mentality that prevails among the producers among Rachel
Maddow's show, which you wrote about really clearly and effectively. I think it's not just the
narrative that's driven by political zeal but also the desire for ratings and clicks. At no
point in this piece do they ever establish that these are Russian accounts. It is possible that
this Facebook accounting question, was a Facebook account turned to a Russian bot farm, that's
what a lot of accounts do. They pay some bot farm to boost their profile on Facebook. One of
the things that bot farms do is they'll direct users to political ads, political hot button
issues, because that's what gets people engaged.
Again, there's no evidence here. What I found really interesting about this article, and
this is true for the previous Daily Beast article that Spencer Ackerman published about
Facebook suspected, alleged, possible Russian bots, is that he turns to a fake Russia expert
named Clint Watts, who's a former FBI agent. If you actually look at Clint Watts's work, and
you're just remotely informed about politics in the U.S., I think you'll realize that character
is a complete crank. If we actually lived in an actual meritocracy that relied on real experts,
he would be out with a metal detector looking for loose change on the beach or in some public
park, but instead, he was testifying before Congress.
He testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Clint Watts, that the chaos of Black
Lives Matter was spawned by RT and Sputnik. He links to an RT article about Black Lives Matter
as his evidence. Along with the Bundy ranch chaos. This too was a Russian active measure. Yeah,
the Bundy ranch. Russia had a huge hand in that. This is someone testifying before the Senate
Intelligence Committee.
Even worse, he goes on to talk about an article he wrote with Will McCants and Mike Doran,
who are these Beltway think tankers presented as terror experts. He wrote it in Foreign
Affairs, which is the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. It was an article lobbying
the U.S. government, the Obama administration, to send arms to Ahrar Al-Sham, which is a Salafi
jihadist rebel group in Syria. The teaser of this article, it's unbelievable, is, "An Al
Qaeda-linked group we can be friends with."
The article comes out. Clinton Watts gets mocked heavily on Twitter. I think I might have
been among the people mocking him, but again, I'm a Russian bot. [Inaudible]. I'm
malfunctioning right now. No, actually, real people mocked Clint Watts on Twitter justifiably.
He was calling for supporting an Al Qaeda alliance in Syria. He goes before the Senate and says
that, "This is when I noticed that there were Russian active measures and an influence
campaign, because I was being mocked on Twitter for this article." He doesn't say what the
article is. He covers up the content.
This testimony elucidates the kind of Russia experts that are being relied on to prove that
there's this vast information warfare campaign, this Gerasimov doctrine, employed by Russia.
Clint Watts is part of a larger initiative spun out of the failed Clinton campaign. It includes
people like Laura Rosenberger, who was a former policy advisor of Hillary Clinton. This should
scare anyone. Consider that these people would have been involved in foreign policy decisions.
Andrew Weisberg I think is another, and then there's J.M. Berger, who's part of the terror
jihadology industry. He never really established himself as much of a major expert there, but
now the hype is all around Russia, so he's rebranded himself as a Russia expert.
They have an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. If you go on the
Alliance for Securing Democracy's website, it's almost as entertaining as the Committee to
Investigate Russia. They have a chart that shows the Russia information threat matrix. They're
addressing all of the different websites, including the National Review, maybe they'll name the
Real News today, that are echoing Kremlin propaganda. How do they determine what the Kremlin's
propaganda is? They not only look at RT and Sputnik, they have a list that they've refused to
release of 600 Russian bots or Russian-controlled social media accounts. As I said, they refuse
to name what these social media accounts are.
Scott Shane, the New York Times reporter, he published another one of these exposes that
exposes nothing, and by the ninth paragraph, you realize the whole thing is unconfirmed and
it's based on suspicions and speculation. He determined that a lot of these supposed Russian
bots he was supposed to be looking at were actually real people, one you can look it is Marcel
Sardo, real people who just simply don't believe in a unipolar world, and they support Russia
as a counterhegemonic force. I know this is impossible for Beltway insiders and coastal elites
to believe, but there are people who actually think that way and are on Twitter.
You're basically looking at a gigantic scam. Scams are bad as they are. Amway's bad. It rips
a lot of people off and makes money for right-wingers. This is a pro-war scam that has
effectively deep-sixed diplomacy with Russia, which could have been effective in establishing
stability in certain areas. 1.4 million people are displaced in Ukraine. Syria's a complete
mess. The U.S. has to work with Russia there to defeat ISIS. This is just dangerous on a global
scale, and so it's important to call out these scam initiatives and to completely scrutinize
and hound the fraudmeisters and neocons behind it.
AARON MATE: All right, that's going to wrap part one of this discussion with Max Blumenthal.
Stay tuned for part two.
Max Blumenthal is a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the
award-winning author of Goliath, Republican Gomorrah, and The 51 Day War. He is the co-host of
the podcast, Moderate Rebels. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal.
Why isn't Max Blumenthal's great book, "The 51 Day War," listed above? Its
omission seems odd and deliberate. Also, "Driving Miss Daisy" was not a bad role for Morgan. It
was an excellent snap shot of the south at the time and the reduction of two representatives of
that era into real people. Never mind.
Anyway, the whole Russiagate thing will either explode
into nothing or drift off into nothing. Why? Because there's no "there" there. ALL just
fabricated hype. Too many people fall prey to surmises and suggestions and baseless
conclusions.
Read Robert Parry, and, please, interview him and others from
consortiumnews.com , my best go to source for truth. Thanks for this interview with Max, a
man I greatly admire.see more
Fabricated hype yes, but for what reason?
The last thing the 'elites' want is Trump making friends with Russia, they are scared it would
expose their NATO scam. No enemies = no money for MIC!
Now the dollar is starting to collapse, note each nation America are at loggerheads with, have
all stopped using or want to stop using the dollar. So, yes, they fabricated the hype and move
onto N Korea, because Russia wouldn't play ball and fire the first shot!
Perhaps Kim Jung-Un
can be tricked into this move? It also throws a spanner in the works against the Chinese One
Belt One Road [Eurasian Union] that also threatens American hegemony & dollar.
see more
Neocons make military war while neoliberals make economic war. Neither group
makes any sense and both groups are destroying the human race with synthetic ideologies based
on nothing but greed, fear, hatred and greed. Both groups represent extreme wealth and the
project to enslave and impoverish the whole world. It's them or us and so far we're clueless.
Right on, and well said Max!
Now then, we know who the neocons are, nastiness is embedded in their DNA and makeup. I could
go and on to an eternity, using a plethora of adjectives to describe their repugnant ideas and
beliefs; but I won't.
On the other hand, here we have the "liberals" of the West coast. Bad losers! Alas, Hillary,
"the queen of chaos" lost, and the Hollywood crowd "lost their mind." And regarding Morgan Freeman, highly disappointing and utterly pathetic.
Morgan is a "natural character actor"- while I enjoy some of his movies, he could easily
be "Morgan Freeman" in each role. I understand his desire to work and perhaps make more
money-he is a paid spokesman I presume. Morgan possesses mo particular geopolitical or
economic expertise that I am aware of: enough about Morgan.
SCAM is the correct word. Now
after failing to get a Russian "hack" dismissed by former CIA & NSA experts and Wikileaks
(Never lied yet to my knowledge) NOW we get Russian FB accounts ( most of which have nothing
to do with clinton).
Why won't Clinton go away?- she is just Not personable enough to get
elected against someone more personable. This is why Trump and Obama won.
I believe she could have beat Jeb and some other GOP hopefuls who also are not as personable.
This DEM meme is all about trying to set itself up for 2018 elections and perhaps to try to
bring Trump down before he does some AWFUL things such as: Open up a truly independent 911
investigation; release the JFK files "unclassified" (The CIA would probably not comply)
Incidentally the CIA was never Congressionally approved -- Trump could eliminate them with an
executive order; of course then we would see direct evidence of the shadow governments power.
What concerns me is that we do not see: Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, Kevin Shipp, Robert
Steele, Stephen Cohen in RN interviews? Is RN reporting its funding sources on its site?
Donatella • 4 days ago
A sign of the Democrat party's desperation is its embrace of the always-wrong
warmongering neocons. Hillary embraced them during her campaign assuming that it would
bring her Republican votes as Chuck Schumer seemed to think. Max Boot is part of this
joint Democrat/Neocon propaganda "Committee to Investigate Russia", there is an excellent
interview of him at the link below.
Lawmakers want the FCC to investigate the Russia-backed
Sputnik Radio for using "U.S. airwaves to influence the
2016 presidential election," apparently not realizing
that Sputnik wasn't on the radio until July 2017, says
Max Blumenthal
"... It is of course idiotic to believe that 3,000 ads for which some $100,000 was spent over two years would somehow effect a U.S. election. In a U.S. presidential election more than $2 billion is spend on advertising. Facebook's ad revenue per year is some $27 billion. ..."
"... The whole ugly mess would be a farce through and through if not for the suffering of innocents and the endless, meaningless attempted destruction of everything noble in the human spirit. ..."
"... "The lack of objectivity and journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence" could ever be." ..."
"... Whats most outrageous about this is that same western liberal media daily could whine about Russian propaganda, meanwhile themselves could write propaganda everyday! These people are brainwashed, and unfortunately they fool a lot of westerners. ..."
"... There is no end to this, these liberals wont stop until Trump declare war on Russia, they are sick in their heads, racist against Russians, no other way to define their irrational hatred. ..."
"... Ah Ha! The Bezos Bozo strikes again! The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com pocketbook. Boycott the disgusting online retailer and urge everyone to, explaining that Bezos is a far bigger threat to peace and democracy than Russia, China, and DPRK combined. ..."
The Obama White House and some Democratic officials
pressed Facebook to find evidence for alleged "Russian interference" in the U.S. election.
When Facebook found none, the pressure increased. Facebook went back, again found nothing and
political pressure increase further. Congress threatened to investigate. Senator Warner flew to
California and demanded the "right" results. Eventually Facebook gave in:
By early August, Facebook had identified more than 3,000 ads addressing social and political
issues that ran in the United States between 2015 and 2017 and that appear to have come from
accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency.
All hailed Facebook - finally there was something they could build their anti-Russian
campaign on.
It is of course idiotic to believe that 3,000 ads for which some $100,000 was spent over
two years would somehow effect a U.S. election. In a U.S. presidential election more than $2
billion is spend on advertising. Facebook's ad revenue per year is some $27 billion.
Moreover - as it now turns out these 3,000 advertisements which "appeared" to be
"associated" with something "Russian" were not anti-Clinton or pro-Trump but were
a mix of pro- and contra ads on various social issues:
The batch of more than 3,000 Russian-bought ads that Facebook is preparing to turn over to
Congress shows a deep understanding of social divides in American society, with s ome ads
promoting African American rights groups, including Black Lives Matter, and others suggesting
that these same groups pose a rising political threat , say people familiar with the covert
influence campaign.
The Russian campaign ! taking advantage of Facebook's ability to send contrary messages to
different groups of users based on their political and demographic characteristics ! also
sought to sow discord among religious groups. Other ads highlighted support for Democrat
Hillary Clinton among Muslim women.
(Note again - there is no evidence that any of the ads were "Russian bought" or part of a
"Russian campaign". Those are mere assertions by the Washington Post authors.)
As we now learn that these ads were not, as earlier assumed, pro-Trump and anti-Clinton, the
narrative has to change. Earlier it was claimed that the alleged Russian aim was to get Trump
elected. That no longer holds:
"Their aim was to sow chaos," said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee. "In many cases, it was more about voter suppression rather than
increasing turnout."
How pro- and anti-Black Lives Matter ads might have suppressed voter turnout will stay
Senator Warner's secret.
Instead of "Russia helped Trump" we now get an even more implausible "Russia wanted to sow
discord" narrative. As if Donald Trump's campaign style had not been enough to cause
controversies.
The Washington Post has been the major outlet to push the
"Russian influence" baloney . It has long left all journalistic standards behind. Today it
goes even further. An editorial now claims
that Russia interfered in the German elections by pushing the right-wing AfD vote through last
minute tweets from some Twitter bots:
The party was buoyed by social-media campaigns of the kind Russia has used elsewhere !
faceless bots that multiply messages over and over. Once again, the Kremlin's quest to
disrupt democracy, divide the West and erode the rules-based liberal international order may
have found a toehold.
No evidence is presented that any online activity "buoyed" the AfD. No evidence is presented
that anything Russian was involved. Here is the sole point the editorial builds on:
In the final hours of the campaign, online supporters of the AfD began warning their base of
possible election fraud, and the online alarms were "driven by anonymous troll accounts and
boosted by a Russian-language botnet," according to the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic
Research Lab.
The Atlantic Council is financed by foreign (Middle East)
interest, NATO and the oil- and weapon industry. It has been a major driver of the anti-Russian
new Cold War narrative. Its "Digital Forensic Research Lab" indeed claims
to have found a few Twitter accounts which have their names written in Cyrillic(!) letters.
Only Russian influence accounts would ever do that! It even found one tweet warning about
election fraud that was retweeted 500(!) times. That MUST have helped the AfD to receive more
than 12% of the 47 million cast votes in Germany - (not!).
Election fraud in the German pen and paper balloting is nearly impossible. No one will take
vague claims thereof as serious. It is simply not an issue in Germany and any such claim would
not effect the vote. German officials have found no
sign of "Russian" election hacking or of voting fraud.
What the Washington Post editors and the Atlantic Council have missed in their search for
undue election influence in the German election is the large support of a islamophobic US
megadonor for the rightwing Germany AfD party:
[O]ne of the major publishers of online content friendly to the far-right [German] party is
an American website financed in large part and lead by Jewish philanthropist Nina Rosenwald.
Rosenwald's site, the Gatestone Institute, publishes a steady flow of inflammatory content
about the German election, focused on stoking fears about immigrants and Muslims.
The fake news stories by the Zionist agitators were translated into German and disseminated
to support the AfD.
Allegations of "Russian influence" in U.S., French and German elections is made
up from hot air. No evidence is or ever was presented to support these claims. Massive
election interference by other foreign interests, like large Saudi donations to the Clinton
Foundation, or Zionist Jewish financier support for extremist positions in Germany and France
is ignored.
The story about "Russian influence" was made up by the Democrats to explain Clinton's loss
of the election and to avoid looking at her personal responsibility for it. It also helps to
push the new
cold war narrative and to sell weapons. As no evidence was ever found to support the
"Russian influence" campaign, Facebook and others come under pressure to deliver the "evidence"
the U.S. intelligence services could not produce. The now resulting story of "sowing chaos" is
something out of la-la-land.
If there is something to learn from this sad story it is this: The lack of objectivity and
journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence"
could ever be.
Posted by b on September 26, 2017 at 01:50 PM |
Permalink
Once again, the Kremlin's quest to disrupt democracy, divide the West and erode the
rules-based liberal international order may have found a toehold.
O, it hurts. The irony, it hurts. Repeating myself from the end of the last thread: The
whole ugly mess would be a farce through and through if not for the suffering of innocents
and the endless, meaningless attempted destruction of everything noble in the human
spirit.
There is nothing illegal about attempting to influence another nation's elections. However,
in most countries, it is illegal for citizens to actively work with foreign governments to do
so.
Whats most outrageous about this is that same western liberal media
daily could whine about Russian propaganda, meanwhile themselves could write propaganda
everyday! These people are brainwashed, and unfortunately they fool a lot of westerners.
Not sure what illegal thing there is with political ads to begin with?
Again there is no logic to the brainwashed liberal.
There is no end to this, these liberals wont stop until Trump declare war on Russia, they are
sick in their heads, racist against Russians, no other way to define their irrational hatred.
That is news to me.
I think you have to label it '
treason ' and the country concerned 'enemy' to get anywhere in law. Or some illegality has to be involved. Is
Russia America's Enemy?
"James Gardner, an election law expert at SUNY Buffalo Law School, said the answer to
whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia "depends on what specific actions formed the
basis of collusion." Political historian Allan Lichtman agreed, saying indictments and
prosecutions would depend upon the particular circumstances of a case and interpretations of
the law that are not always clear.
Both Lichtman and Gardner said the federal statute criminalizing treason could apply.
But putting aside treason, "there are numerous laws" that could be implicated by collusion
with any foreign government, Lichtman said.
Those include the Logan Act, which forbids dealings by private individuals with foreign
governments involved in disputes with the US; the Stored Communications Act, which creates
Fourth Amendment-like privacy protections for email and other digital communications; and the
Espionage Act.
John Coates, an election law expert at Harvard University Law School, pointed to
relevant federal statutes that could apply, including at least two federal statutes governing
campaign contributions and donations by foreign nationals and two governing fraud and
conspiracy offenses."
Ah Ha! The Bezos Bozo strikes again! The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com
pocketbook. Boycott the disgusting online retailer and urge everyone to, explaining that
Bezos is a far bigger threat to peace and democracy than Russia, China, and DPRK combined.
I usually can't miss by always first assuming that reports by officials or media in the West
are disinformation narratives.
I also am usually right to assume that they project on some other what these vermin in the
West are in themselves. They tell us what they are planning or already doing right out of
their mouths if you listen carefully.
@ Karlofi 8 "The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com pocketbook."
Untouchable he is. In addition to being well subsidized on every shipment by the
taxpayers, he is owned by that famous 3-letter agency. Look up the contract.
AND... endlessly parroted at need by the neocons. This entire thing really isn't a
left/right or red/blue deal - it's pro-war and pro-intervention propaganda from the elite
rich of both sides in the US.
in other related news, hillary clinton has influenced her good friends in saudi arabia to let
women drive.... for all the money they gave her to lose the election, that was the least she
could do for the women of saudi arabia!
They are basically doing to Trump what Republicans did to Clinton with the Libyan
investigation - keep going on and on to accidentally uncover something relevant in the
end.
My iphone gives me a news feed that is often from CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, ABC/NBC
news. It is constant Trump bashing. No useful news if any at all on such things as Syria,
economic issues (other than the DOW), health care (other than insurance friendly
Congressional nonsense). All useful news has to be found on alternative media of which this
site is definitely one of the best on Syria.
Look, if Whitewater, Vince Flynn's murder, Benghazi, Clinton Cash, Pizzagate don't need
evidence that leads somewhere, neither does Russian hacking. Pussies whining because their
loser boy Trump doesn't have the prestige actually winning the election would give him is
stupid, useless and boring. Go cry in the Electoral College.
Puting favored Trump. Tough shit if jingo xenophobia is dogmatically acceptable to
conservatives. That's going to be an embarrassment.
It's true that Putin was a gigantic fool for favoring Trump, but that's his shame to
bear.
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 26, 2017 4:15:13 PM | 19
I backed Bernie and several Dem candidates back when that seemed to matter. Because of that I
get about 50 plus emails a day asking for money. ALL without exception begin with a Trump
bashing statement, each more strident than the last (probably because I am not giving them
anything).
As you noted, there is nothing about Syria, loads about Russians, vague invasion hysteria
regarding Ukraine,endless black/white nonsense and don't get me started on the latest
flag/NFL rants.
I've protested in person and in writing just about every military adventure the US was ever
involved in during my life time and until the last few years it was a fairly lonely process.
But now, the level of information on and rejection of the Syrian war appears to be as high as
it was at the end of the Vietnam war. So we are getting somewhere, maybe. What is that
number, is it 13 percent of a population that is needed to create real change?
Bezos is nothing more than an apparatchik of the new USSA. Amazon is the company store. There
is no "boycotting" the company store. And anyway it's too late for that. You WILL read the
company newsletter, you WILL watch those writings being reinforced on the Company Channel
Network, you WILL shop at the company store, you WILL be surveilled by the company in order
to maintain company supremacy and ever-increasing profits.
As long as the company 'owns' the water you drink and the land you live on at least. And
it's not Bezos who owns the company, he's just on the board.
"It's hard to deal with people who confuse Austria and Australia, but there's nothing you
can do about this," he said, probably referring generally to Washington foreign policy
circles, though the original gaffe is attributed to former President George W. Bush.
"Apparently, this is the level of political culture within a certain part of the U.S.
establishment."
The Russian conspiracy claim is just the corporate Democrats excuse for losing the election
to a blowhard reality TV star and real estate hustler who had to be bailed out from several
bankruptcies by the Saudis and the US government. Despite having almost every media outlet
and government bureaucrat on her side, Hillary Clinton lost.
Where'd she lose? In the Rust Belt states that have been hit hardest by neoliberal trade
policies that have wrecked the local economies in those states.
The whole Russia thing really doesn't even involve the Republican Party - its mostly
internal Democratic Party politics, with Sanders Democrats trying to use Clinton's loss to
unseat the corporate Wall Street crowd, and the Clintonites fighting to stay in power by
claiming that their loss wasn't due to their crappy policies and incompetence, but rather to
a massive Russian conspiracy.
Don't forget, the American oligarchs who control the media were really hoping for a Jeb
Bush vs. Hillary Clinton election, and despite pushing hard for that, it almost came up as a
Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump election. Indicating a loss of control by the plutocracy -
that's the take home message. They're still struggling to re-establish control, which is what
flogging the Russia hype is all about.
Truth is, America would be better off with someone like Putin in the executive office,
someone who wouldn't be afraid to imprison at least a few leading Wall Street financiers for
their role in the 2008 economic collapse.
Fortunately, it's not that bad--yet. But it will probably need to get close to that before
the disparate US citizenry arises in an attempt to overcome it all.
Implosion or not, it is definitely an attempt to internal problems including the collapse
of neoliberal ideology by unleashing a
witch hunt in best Senator McCarthy style. One motivation might be suppressing any critique of
neoliberalism by equating it to pro-Russian propaganda. This is very much in best USSR
traditions, where propaganda was preoccupied with foreign enemies which were constantly trying to
undermine the state...
So far it proved to be a very effective tool for marginalizing the dissent. As in 1984:
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
There was a time when Russophobia served as an effective form of population control – used by the
American ruling class in particular to command the general US population into patriotic loyalty.
Not any longer. Now, Russophobia is a sign of weakness, of desperate implosion among the US ruling
class from their own rotten, internal decay.
This propaganda technique worked adequately well during the Cold War decades when the former Soviet
Union could be easily demonized as "godless communism" and an "evil empire". Such stereotypes, no
matter how false, could be sustained largely because of the monopoly control of Western media by
governments and official regulators.
The Soviet Union passed away more than a quarter of a century ago, but Russophobia among the US
political class is more virulent than ever.
This week it was evident from Congressional
hearings in Washington into alleged Russian interference in US politics that large sections of
American government and establishment media are fixated by Russophobia and a belief that Russia is
a malign foreign adversary.
However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population seems
to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday. This is partly due to more diverse global communications
which challenge the previous Western monopoly for controlling narrative and perception. Contemporary
Russophobia – demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin or Russian military forces – does not have
the same potency for scaring the Western public. Indeed, due to greater diversity in global news
media sources, it is fair to say that "official" Western depictions of Russia as an enemy, for example
allegedly about to invade Europe or allegedly interfering in electoral politics, are met with a healthy
skepticism – if not ridicule by many Western citizens.
What is increasingly apparent here is a gaping chasm between the political class and the wider
public on the matter of Russophobia. This is true for Western countries generally, but especially
in the US. The political class – the lawmakers in Washington and the mainstream news media – are
frenzied by claims that Russia interfered in the US presidential elections and that Russia has some
kind of sinister leverage on the presidency of Donald Trump.
But this frenzy of Russophobia is not reflected among the wider public of ordinary American citizens.
Rabid accusations that Russia hacked the computers of Trump's Democrat rival Hillary Clinton to spread
damaging information about her; that this alleged sabotage of American democracy was an "act of war";
that President Trump is guilty of "treason" by "colluding" with a "Russian influence campaign" –
all of these sensational claims seem to be only a preoccupation of the privileged political class
. Most ordinary Americans, concerned about making a living in a crumbling society, either don't buy
the claims or view them as idle chatter.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov this week dismissed the Congressional hearings into alleged
Russian interference in US politics. He aptly said that US lawmakers and the corporate media have
become "entangled" in their own fabrications. "They are trying to find evidence for conclusions that
they have already made", said Peskov.
Other suitable imagery is that the US political class are tilting at windmills, chasing their
own tails, or running from their own shadows. There seems to be a collective delusional mindset.
Unable to accept the reality that the governing structure of the US has lost legitimacy in the
eyes of the people, that the people rebelled by electing an outsider in the form of business mogul-turned-politician
Donald Trump, that the collapse of American traditional politics is due to the atrophy of its bankrupt
capitalist economy over several decades – the ruling class have fabricated their own excuse for
demise by blaming it all on Russia.
The American ruling class cannot accept, or come to terms, with the fact of systemic failure
in their own political system. The election of Trump is a symptom of this failure and the widespread
disillusionment among voters towards the two-party train wreck of Republicans and Democrats. That
is why the specter of Russian interference in the US political system had to be conjured up, by necessity,
as a way of "explaining" the abject failure and the ensuing popular revolt.
Russophobia was rehabilitated from the Cold War closet by the American political establishment
to distract from the glaring internal collapse of American politics.
The corrosive, self-destruction seems to know no bounds. James Comey, the head of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation,
told Congress this week that the White House is being probed for illicit contacts with Russia.
This dramatic notice served by Comey was greeted with general approval by political opponents of
the Trump administration, as well as by news media outlets.
The New York Times said the FBI was in effect holding a "criminal investigation at the doorstep
of the White House".
Other news outlets are openly
airing discussions on the probability of President Trump being impeached from office.
The toxic political atmosphere of Russophobia in Washington is unprecedented. The Trump administration
is being crippled at every turn from conducting normal political business under a toxic cloud of
suspicion that it is guilty of treason from colluding with Russia.
President Trump has run afoul with Republicans in Congress over his planned healthcare reforms
because many Republicans are taking issue instead over the vaunted Russian probe.
When Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was
reported
to be skipping a NATO summit next month but was planning to visit Moscow later in the same month,
the itinerary was interpreted as a sign of untoward Russian influence.
What makes the spectacle of political infighting so unprecedented is that there is such little
evidence to back up allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. It is preponderantly based on innuendo
and anonymous leaks to the media, which are then recycled as "evidence".
Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said earlier this
week that he has seen no actual evidence among classified documents indicating any collusion between
the Trump campaign team and the Russian government.
Even former senior intelligence officials, James Clapper and Michael Morell who are no friends
of Trump, have lately admitted in media interviews that there is no such evidence.
Yet, FBI chief James Comey told Congress that his agency was pursuing a potentially criminal
investigation into the Trump administration, while at the same time not confirming or denying the
existence of any evidence.
And, as already noted, this declaration of open-ended snooping by Comey on the White House
was met with avid approval by political opponents of Trump, both on Capitol Hill and in the corporate
media.
Let's just assume for a moment that the whole Trump-Russia collusion story is indeed fake.
That it is groundless, a figment of imagination. There are solid reasons to believe that is the case.
But let's just assume here that it is fake for the sake of argument.
That then means that the Washington seat of government and the US presidency are tearing themselves
apart in a futile civil war.
The real war here is a power struggle within the US in the context of ruling parties no longer
having legitimacy to govern.
This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but
a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics.
trulz4lulz -> Logan 5 •Mar 24, 2017 9:15 PM
I've been MSM-free for so long now, I forgot who I'm supposed to be hating this week!! I see the
effects in sooo many of my friends though, more so on the left, than the right. Which is odd....? Or
maybe it isn't, due to their mental retardation. Ohh well...game on.
stizazz -> trulz4lulz •Mar 24, 2017 9:44 PM
Russophobia has been ongoing since W Bush. They just want to keep Trump on the World War 3 track.
Bolsevism, apart being a russian word, is at home in US, originated in US, was nurtured by US
money and was, still is, the main US export (topic: imperial US wars).
hoyeru (not verified) •Mar 24, 2017 9:17 PM
Whether the Soviet Union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an
enemy to divert the sheeple's attention that their so called American dream is really a
nightmare.
Besides, USA's empire is failing and Russia is getting stronger. of course USA will be pissed
off about it.
daveO -> hoyeru •Mar 24, 2017 9:34 PM
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
I'm glad to have lived to see them almost fail. When I first read this in 1984, by
coincidence, there seemed to be no end in sight.
As soon as the USSR failed they replaced it with terrorism(Eastasia)...
MEFOBILLS -> daveO •Mar 25, 2017 3:31 AM
Oceania is always against a land power arising, including Eurasia.
Another wrinkle that is important: Feminized Western Societies. Russia is now a traditional
masculine society, while the west has been feminized. (Judaized and Feminized are similar - both
operate with deception)
Femine societies lash out, don't forgive, make dubious alliances, and fight underhanded.
The table at the bottom of link above describes the differences in wartime behavior between the
two types of societies.
Since Trump is masculine, he naturally will be more instinctively in alignment with Putin and
Russia.
nmewn •Mar 24, 2017 9:22 PM
Isn't it interesting that Russian government officials simply say "Veee don't comment on state
spying activities" while in American government officials simply pass it directly to their media
cronies who are quoted in newspapers and on TeeeVeee?
Anonymously...of course ;-)
DuneCreature •Mar 24, 2017 9:31 PM
Did we declare war on Russia while I was taking a nap?
What is the hell is going on with the raving Russian hacker meltdown horseshit? ... Bill Gates
and the NSA camps out on my network every time I turn it on? .. Do I get to declare war and run
to the UN for sanctions on Ft Meade?
Will Insane McCain get charged for fraternizing with ISIS Big Bagdaddy?
... ... ...
Cabreado •Mar 24, 2017 9:49 PM
"This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but a
symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics."
More importantly, it is a decay in the electorate and how it relates to the elected (isn't that
the real heart of US politics?)
And so the elected, naturally, have become a corrupt mass of opportunists. This is why they
("We") invented Rule of Law. We just have to give a damn like We mean it.
francis scott f... •Mar 24, 2017 10:14 PM
Russophobia - Symptom Of US Implosion ? may be Symptom of Deep State implosion
dark_matter •Mar 24, 2017 10:36 PM
The Americans are poor haters in international affairs because of their innate feeling of
superiority over all foreigners. An American's hatred for a fellow American (for Hoover or
Roosevelt) is far more virulent than any antipathy he can work up against foreigners. Should
Americans begin to hate foreigners wholeheartedly, it will be an indication that they have lost
confidence in their own way of life. ~Eric Hoffer in True Believer
Escapeclaws -> dark_matter •Mar 25, 2017 2:49 AM
That book was written eons ago in "historical time". Now Americans, being ever more
stomped upon and ground down are identifying with the victims of totalitarian ideologies, like
the Russians under Bolshevism. We have our our own Bolsheviks. Like the Bolsheviks, they will
kill millions of their fellow citizens if all goes according to plan (20 Million in Russia under
the Bolsheviks). History doesn't rhyme, it repeats. THE NEOCONS--THEY WANT YOU DEAD!
Batman11 •Mar 25, 2017 3:37 AM
Look at US inequality:
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/557ef766ecad04fe50a257cd-960/screen shot 2015-06-15 at
11.28.56 am.png
A picture paints a thousand words. American philanthropists sponsor right wing think-tanks to
make people believe those at the top need more.
Look behind Trump when he talks from one of his residences, not everything is covered in gold
leaf. He does need more. The US is being ransacked by its own elite and who are not going to take
any responsibility for their own greed, so they are blaming the Russians.
Looking on the bright side. A nation with military bases in almost every nation on Earth is
ransacked by its own elite, a source of great amusement for generations to come (outside the US).
American exceptionalism – exceptionally stupid.
Batman11 -> Batman11 •Mar 25, 2017 4:03 AM
Add it to the list of things that will last forever: The British Empire, The Thousand Year
Reich, American exceptionalism
krage_man •Mar 25, 2017 5:02 AM
Russophobia is just the result of the clash of 2 irreconcilable things. The first one is
about USA being the superpower, controlling world affairs. The second one is that Russia's
economy, influence, military power and state management by Putin government actually prevent USA
from dominating Russia and its affairs.
It is internal conflict in the mind of Deep State figures. The only way is to either
prove that the USA status by dominating Russia, or to adjust self vision as the only superpower
and accept the changing world. Trump was elected to follow the later, but the deep
state/establishment is unable to see anything other that the former as the way forward. So
Russophobia is to keep all society following the way of dominance and to prevent Trump adopting
more rational way of agreeing on sphere of influence with Russia.
BritBob •Mar 25, 2017 6:15 AM
Can Russia be trusted?
Russia tells Britain give back Gibraltar & Falklands before telling US what to do.
RUSSIA has told Britain it should "clean its conscience" and give back Gibraltar and the Falkland
Islands before it criticises them over their involvement in Ukraine.
Moscow's ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin made the shocking remarks when responding to his
British counterpart Matthew Rycroft at a UN security council meeting in New York. (Daily Express
4 Feb 2017)
Do the Spanish have a claim to the Rock? Gibraltar - Some Relevant International Law: https://www.academia.edu/10575180/Gibraltar_-_Some_Relevant_Internationa...
Perhaps not.
Funny thing to say when Argentina has never legally owned the Falklands. So how can they 'be
returned' ?
No, of course Russia cannot be "trusted". Their governmen is no better than anyone elses.
Mimir -> BritBob •Mar 25, 2017 9:44 AM
Spain is continuously claiming the return of Gibraltar to Spain. (Was conquered in 1704)
When it comes to Falkland Islands, according to all International maritime agreements and
especially United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it is very difficult to argue that
the Falkland Islands is part of the UK. It would be for the International Court of Justice to
solve the dispute.
I think Russia has a point.
d edwards -> Last of the Middle Class •Mar 25, 2017 8:12 AM
Seems the only one's with Russophobia are the f ing neomarxist dems who need a scapegoat for
their loses over the last eight years under 0dumbo.
brushhog •Mar 25, 2017 7:40 AM
Its very simple, those in charge need an outside enemy to blame and to try to unite the people
against. The worse things get, the louder they will cry wolf and the more threatening they will
become towards Russia.
The global elitists would rather end the world in a nuclear holocaust then let go of power and
admit they're to blame.
Beans •Mar 25, 2017 7:53 AM
The whole Russophobia gimmick in the West is purely a Zionist fiction created to punish the
White Christian Russians for daring to assert themselves. Connect the dots between Jewish
political/business interests in Ukraine, Russia and the US Congress/Executive branch/Governmental
agencies and you quickly see how everything falls into place. Free yourselves, White Christian
Americans.
Faeriedust -> Beans •Mar 25, 2017 1:38 PM
Not all Jews are Bankers. Not all Bankers are Jewish. There is, however, a significant
overlap.
Beans -> Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 4:16 PM
Yeah sure, you're absolutely right. Another way of putting it is by saying; 'Not all Jews were
Bolsheviks. Not all Bolsheviks were Jews'... The historically indisputable fact however, is that
about 85 to 90% of the members of the first Bolshevik government of 'Soviet' Russia was indeed
Jewish ;)
Of course they try to influence our elections. Now step back. Ever heard the name Victoria
Nuland? Phillip of Makedon? Or perhaps The Great Game? In point of fact, major players in world
domination ALWAYS try to influence both rivals and all the bit players who have something they
want. And the Russians play hardball, no question about that. But generally, with their OWN
dissidents, not other people's. Ask Trotsky's ghost. Politics is a full-contact sport. The only
exception is when all the players belong to the same League, and the League bans anyone who
breaks the rules. Right now, there IS no league. So yes, Putin plays hard. The CIA does, too.
aloha_snakbar •Mar 25, 2017 9:44 AM
However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population
seems to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday.
Im hiding under a desk... I cant hear you...
VW Nerd •Mar 25, 2017 10:46 AM
Commiey is a stooge of the deep state. Someone has some serious dirt on him.
Caleb Abell -> VW Nerd •Mar 25, 2017 11:01 AM
Along those lines, Comey may have derailed Clinton because elements of the deep state wanted
her gone, and they were willing to accept Trump on a temporary basis. Now that Clinton is out of
the picture, they can work on replacing Trump (one way or the other) with the much more compliant
Pence.
CRM114 •Mar 25, 2017 12:31 PM
This article would have an even stronger case if it weren't based on a false premise. The
Soviet Union WAS a threat to the West; that wasn't propaganda. Now Russia isn't a threat and it
is propaganda.
Thus it is even more obvious that the US/Western elite are hunting for a way to demonize
Russia, and we need look no further than Russia/China's efforts to escape the World banking
structure for the reason.
Faeriedust -> CRM114 •Mar 25, 2017 12:42 PM
That's really debateable. Remember, the Soviet Union was our ALLY in WWII. Stalin was a
batshit thug, and we (not to mention the Russians) were well rid of him. BUT -- immediately after
his death the USSR was taken over by a committee of Experienced Old Men who were willing and able
to be pragmatic.
Try to remember that when the Bolshevik Revolution started, both the English and the Americans
weren't sure whether to support it or oppose it. Then Lenin and Trotsky decided to default on the
Russian war debt -- which they had NO way of paying. Suddenly they became the world's greatest
evil. Many high-ranking foreign service specialists in Britain even supported Hitler, initially,
with the idea that they would turn him loose against the Russians and sit back to watch the
fireworks. Of course, that was before Hitler repudiated Germany's WWI war debt. Do you see a
pattern yet?
The issue was ALWAYS the wealth, profit, and survival of the banks. ALWAYS.
CRM114 -> Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 1:12 PM
I suggest you read some more history. You are making links for which there is only
circumstantial evidence, whereas the alternatives have an abundance of evidence. I am vehently
against the current role of the bankers, but...
The support for Hitler was both ideological and based on around 600 years of British
foreign policy - preventing any one power gaining hegemony in Europe.
Now, the bankers sought to exploit all of this and make a profit, immoral or otherwise, but
they didn't start it,and they couldn't have stopped it.
I am prepared to consider the idea that they now can exert such a high level of influence, and
are doing so, but this was not true in the past.
Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 12:35 PM
Washington has had a problem with groupthink for a long time, but now it's become obvious
to the entire world, not to mention the mythical Average American. Neither Millenials nor Boomers
were ever likely to fall for McCarthyism 2.0. Instead, they see the political leadership for what
it is -- a senile elite that has entirely lost its grip on reality. This is common in dying
empires; in fact it's the fundamental reason why empires collapse.
Yes, running through all your resources, hollowing out your military, and destroying
international goodwill aren't exactly the way to Win Friends And Influence People. But they
happen, because the 1% at the top of the totem pole become so divorced from what life is like for
the other 99%, that they lose the ability to make intelligent or rational decisions.
It's like an oil tanker trying to thread its way through a gap in a reef -- with good steering
and a willing crew, it can be done. But if the captain's passed out drunk and the Exec is high on
meth, with half the crew already taking off in the lifeboats against orders . . . it takes a
miracle to avoid the rocks.
"... In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet
states." ..."
"... But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests
may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia?
..."
"... After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with
the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda,
and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe. ..."
"... Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with
Israel's new regional ally, Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Israel's influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the
Israel Lobby's conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was
not there to "pander" and then pandered his pants off. ..."
"... And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the
South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Paris peace talks; take a
serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan's campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter's efforts to free 52 American
hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey's covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian
regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms. ..."
"... But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country
to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense
of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic
means to a political end. ..."
"... As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match. ..."
The core absurdity of the Russia-gate frenzy is its complete lack of proportionality. Indeed, the hysteria is reminiscent of Sen.
Joe McCarthy warning that "one communist in the faculty of one university is one communist too many" or Donald Trump's highlighting
a few "bad hombres" raping white American women.
It's not that there were no Americans who espoused communist views at universities and elsewhere or that there are no "bad hombre"
rapists; it's that these rare exceptions were used to generate a dangerous overreaction in service of a propagandistic agenda. Historically,
we have seen this technique used often when demagogues seize on an isolated event and exploit it emotionally to mislead populations
to war.
Today, we have The New York Times and The Washington Post repeatedly publishing front-page articles about allegations that some
Russians with "links" to the Kremlin bought $100,000 in Facebook ads to promote some issues deemed hurtful to Hillary Clinton's campaign
although some of the ads ran after the election.
Initially, Facebook could find no evidence of even that small effort but was pressured in May by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia.
The Washington Post
reported that Warner, who is spearheading the Russia-gate investigation in the Senate Intelligence Committee, flew to Silicon
Valley and urged Facebook executives to take another look at possible ad buys.
Facebook responded to this congressional pressure by scouring its billions of monthly users and announced that it had located
470 suspect accounts associated with ads totaling $100,000 – out of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue.
Here is how the Times
described
those findings: "Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by
a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election
campaign." (It sometimes appears that every Russian -- all 144 million of them -- is somehow "linked" to the Kremlin.)
Last week, congressional investigators urged Facebook to expand its review into "troll farms" supposedly based in Belarus, Macedonia
and Estonia – although Estonia is by no means a Russian ally; it joined NATO in 2004.
"Warner and his Democratic counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, have been increasingly
vocal in recent days about their frustrations with Facebook," the Post
reported
Facebook Complies
So, on Thursday, Facebook succumbed to demands that it turn over to Congress copies of the ads, a move that has only justified
more alarmist front-page stories about Russia! Russia! Russia!
In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet
states."
So, it appears that not only are all Russians "linked" to the Kremlin, but all former Soviet states as well.
But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose
interests may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently
than Russia?
After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been
pulling the U.S. government
into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the
region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe.
And, let's not forget the 8,000-pound gorilla in the room: Israel. Does anyone think that whatever Russia may or may not have
done in trying to influence U.S. politics compares even in the slightest to what Israel does all the time?
Which government used its pressure and that of its American agents (i.e., the neocons) to push the United States into the disastrous
war in Iraq? It wasn't Russia, which was among the countries urging the U.S. not to invade; it was Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu.
Indeed, the plans for "regime change" in Iraq and Syria can be traced back to the work of key American neoconservatives employed
by Netanyahu's political campaign in 1996. At that time, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other leading neocons unveiled a seminal
document entitled "
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," which proposed casting aside negotiations with Arabs in favor of simply
replacing the region's anti-Israeli governments.
However, to make that happen required drawing in the powerful U.S. military, so after the 9/11 attacks, the neocons inside President
George W. Bush's administration set in motion a deception campaign to justify invading Iraq, a war which was to be followed by more
"regime changes" in Syria and Iran.
A Wrench in the Plans
Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with
Israel's new regional ally,
Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
As Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren
explained , the goal was to shatter
the Shiite "strategic arc" running from Iran through Syria to Lebanon and Israel's Hezbollah enemies.
How smashing this Shiite "arc" was in the interests of the American people – or even within their consciousness – is never explained.
But it was what Israel wanted and thus it was what the U.S. government enlisted to do, even to the point of
letting sophisticated U.S. weaponry
fall into the hands of Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate.
Israel's influence
over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby's conference
of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and
announced that he was not there
to "pander" and then pandered his pants off.
And, whenever Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to show off his power, he is invited to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress
at which Republicans and
Democrats compete to see how many times and how quickly they can leap to their feet in standing ovations. (Netanyahu holds the
record for the number of times a foreign leader has addressed joint sessions with three such appearances, tied with Winston Churchill.)
Yet, Israeli influence is so engrained in the U.S. political process that even the mention of the existence of an "Israel Lobby"
brings accusations of anti-Semitism. "Israel Lobby" is a forbidden phrase in Washington.
However, pretty much whenever Israel targets a U.S. politician for defeat, that politician goes down, a muscle that Israel flexed
in the early 1980s in taking out
Rep. Paul Findley and Sen. Charles Percy , two moderate Republicans whose crime was to suggest talks with the Palestine Liberation
Organization.
So, if the concern is the purity of the American democratic process and the need to protect it from outside manipulation, let's
have at it. Why not a full-scale review of who is doing what and how? Does anyone think that Israel's influence over U.S. politics
is limited to a few hundred Facebook accounts and $100,000 in ads?
If such an effort were ever proposed, you would get a sense of how sensitive this topic is in Official Washington, where foreign
money and its influence are rampant. There would be accusations of anti-Semitism in connection with Israel and charges of conspiracy
theory even in well-documented cases of collaboration between U.S. politicians and foreign interests.
So, instead of a balanced and comprehensive assessment of this problem, the powers-that-be concentrate on the infinitesimal case
of Russian "meddling" as the excuse for Hillary Clinton's shocking defeat. But the key reasons for Clinton's dismal campaign had
virtually nothing to do with Russia, even if you believe all
the evidence-lite accusations
about Russian "meddling."
The Russians did not tell Clinton to vote for the disastrous Iraq War and
play endless footsy with the neocons
; the Russians didn't advise her to set up a private server to handle her State Department emails and potentially expose classified
information; the Russians didn't lure Clinton and the U.S. into
the Libyan fiasco nor
suggest her ghastly joke in response to Muammar Gaddafi's lynching ("We came, we saw, he died"); the Russians had nothing to do with
her greedy decision to accept millions of dollars in Wall Street speaking fees and then try to keep the speech contents secret from
the voters; the Russians didn't encourage her husband to become a serial philanderer and make a mockery of their marriage; nor did
the Russians suggest to Anthony Weiner, the husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, that he send lewd photos to a teen-ager on a
laptop also used by his wife, a development that led FBI Director James Comey to reopen the Clinton-email investigation just 11 days
before the election; the Russians weren't responsible for Clinton's decision not to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan; the Russians
didn't stop her from offering a coherent message about how she would help the struggling white working class; and on and on.
But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country
to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a
sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic
means to a political end.
As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. ..."
"... We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? ..."
"... Can you see why Washington gave up on Putin? The speech identifies the United States reckless behavior as the single greatest threat to global security today. Putin says that the unipolar world-model which operates from "one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making" is unacceptable, has no "moral foundation", and "plunges the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." The speech is a straightforward repudiation of Washington's lunatic ambition to rule the world, which is why Putin is presently on America's list of enemies. ..."
"... Putin's domestic vision also conflicts with US policy, which is dominated by neoliberal, trickle-down, austerity-crazed, deficit hawkery that transfers the nations wealth to the 1 percent plutocrats at the top of the economic foodchain. The Russian president has made great strides in reducing poverty, eliminating illiteracy, improving healthcare, and raising the standard of living for millions of working people. Here's an excerpt from a speech by Putin that outlines his domestic priorities: ..."
"... "Russia is a social welfare state .Social policy has many objectives and many dimensions. It entails providing support for the poor and those who are unable to earn a living for valid reasons. It means implementing social mobility and providing a level playing field for every person on the basis of his or her capabilities and talents. The effectiveness of social policy is measured by whether popular opinion believes the society we live in is a just one or not. ..."
"... The glaring income disparity is unacceptably high. Every eighth Russian citizen still lives below the official poverty line . ..."
"... People, primarily the "middle class," well-educated and well-paid individuals, are dissatisfied with the level of social services on the whole. The quality of education and healthcare is still quite low, despite higher budgetary allocations. Services that you have to pay for in these areas are still rife. The goal of creating a comfortable living environment is still a long way off ..."
"... The decline in the national workforce and an increasingly ageing population means the efficiency of social spending has to be increased. We simply have no choice, if we want to preserve and improve the situation . ..."
"... Every country looks upon its teachers, doctors, scientists and cultural workers as the backbone of the "creative class", as the people who contribute to the sustained development of society and serve as the pillar of public morality . ..."
"... I believe that healthcare and education reforms are only possible when they guarantee decent pay for public sector professionals. A doctor, teacher or professor should be able to earn enough on their basic jobs not to have to seek outside earnings. If we fail to fulfill this condition our efforts to change the organisation of the economic mechanisms and renew the material base of these sectors will come to nothing . ..."
"... Starting on September 1, we will raise the pay of lecturers in state educational establishments – up to the average salary for the region. In the course of 2013-2018, the average salary of professors and lecturers will be gradually increased twofold to double the average in the economy .In the case of doctors and researchers, the target for 2018 is the same as for higher school lecturers – 200% of the average pay across the region .. ..."
"... Together with the trade unions we have to consider legislation to broaden the participation of workers in the management of enterprises. This kind of participation is practiced, for example, in Germany in the form of what are known as works councils . ..."
"... In the next few years, we must create a system to help every disabled person who is able and willing to learn and work find their educational and professional niche in life: from specialised educational programmes to jobs adapted to an individual's specific requirements . ..."
"... While incomes are growing, the gap between the richest and the poorest population groups is decreasing too slowly. Income disparity in Russia is comparable to that in the Untied States but is considerably higher than in Western Europe. A certain degree of income differentiation is logical for a mature market economy, but too large a gap can be seen as inequality and can fuel social tensions. Hence our priority is to reduce material inequality by making social policy more targeted and effective, but above all by giving people an opportunity to earn enough to ensure a desirable level of income ..This will allow us to perceive Russia as a more equitable country where everyone earns his or her income with their own labour and talent . ..."
"... And the government will provide targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work . ..."
"... The government is taking measures to support families' desire to have two or more children . ..."
"... It is absolutely unacceptable for the birth of a child to bring a family to the edge of poverty. A national goal for the next three or four years is to make this totally impossible. Today the regional governments approve the size of most child benefits, and it should be said that they are scandalously small in many regions .However, such assistance should not be provided to families with high incomes (Read the whole speech here: http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18071/ ..."
"... Sure, it's a political speech, but when was the last time you heard Obama talk about "social mobility" or "support for the poor" or "glaring income disparity" or "healthcare and education reforms" (that didn't involve privatization) or "decent pay for public sector professionals" or strengthening unions or doubling the "salary of professors and lecturers" or increasing "child benefits and education" or "creating a system to help every disabled person" or "providing targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work" etc etc etc. On every issue, Putin's platform is more progressive than Obama's, and yet, idiot Americans still think President Hopium is working for them. Right. ..."
"... Putin's motto is: "Each rouble spent in the social sphere must 'produce justice.'" That alone proves that he'd make a better president than Obama. ..."
"... MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion . He can be reached at [email protected] ..."
"Every rouble spent in the social sphere should 'generate justice.' An equitable social and
economic system is the main requirement for ensuring our sustained development during these years."
– Russian President Vladimir Putin
Is Vladimir Putin really the "KGB thug" the US media makes him out to be?
Take a look at this except from a book review in the New York Times and see what you think.
"A decade ago it was possible to imagine two inner Putins wrestling for his soul: the K.G.B.
thug versus the modernizer. Sadly, events since then suggest that the inflexible misanthrope we
see is the only Putin we get
Even the most casual Putin-watcher has marveled at his narcissism, manifested in his odd habit
of inviting cameras to record him bare-chested on horseback, swimming the butterfly stroke in
a Siberian river, scuba diving and collecting skin samples from whales, among other stunts. Gessen
traces his self-absorption back to his youth.
Putin's childhood ambition was to be a spy in the K.G.B., but Gessen reveals that his actual
experience was more Walter Mitty than James Bond. He was basically a paper-pusher, collecting
press clippings in Dresden while the East German Stasi did the real dirty work of recruiting informers
and policing dissent .Putin soon hitched himself to the first of a series of flawed, small-d democrats,
who would propel him to power." ("Reclaiming the Kremlin", Bill Keller, New York Times)
Read enough?
Okay, so according to the Times, Putin is an ass-kissing, paper-pushing, self-adsorbed, autocratic
thug who has dreams of greatness. Did we miss something? Oh yeah, he's also a misanthropic slacker
who let's everyone else do the heavy lifting.
Is that what they call objective journalism at the NYT? Its worth noting that this laughable bit
of propaganda was written by the Times editor himself, Bill Keller! Can you believe it? I mean, wouldn't
you think that the editor of the nation's number 1 newspaper would make some effort to hide his bias?
But, no, when it comes to serving the folks in power, Keller is just as willing to run his credibility
through the mud as the next guy. And, so he has, but what does that tell us about Putin?
It tells us that Putin is despised by powerful members of the US policy establishment. That's
what it tells us. After all, it's their views that are reflected in the mainstream media via propagandists
like Keller.
But, why? Putin is not a fiery leftist like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. He's a right-of-center
nationalist who's not particularly ideological, confrontational, or unreasonable. so, what's the
problem? Besides, Putin has bent over backwards to accommodate the US on everything from nuclear
disarmament to the War on Terror. So why the hostility?
It's because Putin wants to be a partner on global issues, particularly security issues. But the
US doesn't want partners; it wants lackeys and puppets who will follow orders. And that's why the
NY Times and the others in the moron media are ganging up on him, because–in Washington's eyes–if
your not a lackey, your the enemy. It's that simple.
If you want to know why Russian-US relations have steadily deteriorated, you might want to read
this excerpt from an article by Pat Buchanan who asks "Doesn't Putin Have a Point?"
"Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow
felt it had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only
did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and virtually the
whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch. Now, there is a scheme
afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.
Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia
to Turkey, to bypass Russia.
Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old Soviet republics for the
liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.
Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states like North Korea, we now
learn we are going to put anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they
directed?
Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and Democratic auxiliaries, and
tax-exempt think tanks, foundations, and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed
by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the
former Soviet republics, and Russia herself.
U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia, but failed in Belarus.
Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without justification,
as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.
Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on
to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her
territory to take over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest in the
Orthodox states of the Balkans.
These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?"
There it is in a nutshell. The world's biggest troublemaker (guess who?) has broken its promises,
surrounded Russia with military bases, put NGOs on the ground to incite revolution in all the former
Soviet states (and Russia), and now wants to situate nuclear missile sites a few hundred miles from
Moscow. This is how Washington strengthens ties with its former adversaries, by poking a thumb in
their eye at every opportunity.
The Obama administration has assured Putin that its anti-ballistic missile defense system, which
will be deployed in former Warsaw pact countries in E Europe, is strictly defensive and will only
be aimed at Iran. But it isn't true. In fact, the system will be aimed at Russia and poses a direct
threat to Russian national security. Everyone knows this, even though the media continues to soft-peddle
the dangers of the proposed system. The Washington Post even characterized it as "a small missile
defense system" which has set off "waves of paranoia about domestic and foreign opponents".
Sure, what's a few nuclear weapons among friends?
Naturally, Putin has seen through this ruse and protested. Here's what he at a press conference
6 years ago:
"Once the missile defense system is put in place it will work automatically with the entire
nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability.
"For the first time in history there will be elements of the US nuclear capability on the European
continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security ..Of course, we
have to respond to that."
Putin is right. The "so-called" defense system is actually an expansion (and integration) of America's
existing nuclear weapons system which will now function as one unit. The dangers of this are obvious.
The US (under Bush and Obama) wants to achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle,
calls the "longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia". That's what missile defense
is all about.
In Boyle's article "US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First Strike Threat" he states:
"By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces would be taken out. Namely,
the United States Government believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first
strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."
By "compellence" Boyle means that first strike capability will allow the US to force Moscow to
meet its demands or face certain annihilation.
So what should Putin do? Should he sit back on his haunches and wait for the US to come to its
senses or threaten to remove the new installations by force? The issue remains unresolved.
As for the US NGOs, it's long been known that they're up to no good, and that they function as
the civilian component of a larger military strategy to rule the world. There was an interesting
piece by Paul Craig Roberts in
CounterPunch
on Thursday which fleshes out the activities of these groups and their real purpose. Here's an excerpt
from the article:
"The Russian government has finally caught on that its political opposition is being financed
by the US taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy and other CIA/State Department fronts
in an attempt to subvert the Russian government and install an American puppet state in the geographically
largest country on earth, the one country with a nuclear arsenal sufficient to deter Washington's
aggression ..
Much of the Russian political opposition consists of foreign-paid agents .. The Itar-Tass News
Agency reported on July 3 that there are about 1,000 organizations in Russia that are funded from
abroad and engaged in political activity .
The Washington-funded Russian political opposition masquerades behind "human rights" and says
it works to "open Russia." What the disloyal and treasonous Washington-funded Russian "political
opposition" means by "open Russia" is to open Russia for brainwashing by Western propaganda, to
open Russia to economic plunder by the West, and to open Russia to having its domestic and foreign
policies determined by Washington."
That sums it up pretty well, doesn't it? Of course, any action taken by Putin to impede the the
activities of foreign spies (and agents for global capital) is denounced in the media as an attack
on civil liberties and democracy.
Talk about hypocrisy? Do we really need to hear the world's biggest civil rights abuser scold
Russia for defending itself from foreign invasion? When was the last time Putin bombed a wedding
party in Pakistan or blew up one of its own citizens in a drone attack or incarcerated and tortured
mere "suspects" without charging them with a crime? Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
Did you know that the Bush administration thought they could co-opt Putin and bring him into the
imperial fold like America's other puppets around the world?
It's true. Bush actually liked Putin and tried to get him to fall in line. But then something
happened at a Conference on Security Policy in Munich in February 2007, where all the top brass in
the administration and the far-right think tanks realized that Putin couldn't be co-opted; that he
was ferociously nationalistic and would not do their bidding. So the entire strategy was scrapped
and the demonisation began. Here's a clip from the speech that Putin gave in Munich that turned things
around. It's a rather long because I wanted you to get a sense of the man, his sincerity, his earnestness,
and his genuine desire for fundamental change in US-Russian relations:
"Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge
strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.
This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the
international community's and the world's agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us
with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double
standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.
The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place.
The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to
world supremacy. And what hasn't happened in world history?
However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the
day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one
centre of decision-making.
It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is
pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because
it destroys itself from within.
And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is
the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.
Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason
those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's
world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today's – and precisely
in today's – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What
is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can
be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.
Along with this, what is happening in today's world – and we just started to discuss this –
is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of
a unipolar world.
And what have the results been?
Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they
have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars
as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. And no less people perish in these
conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!
Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in
international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.
As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of
these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law.
And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's
legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped
its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational
policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?
In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according
to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.
And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I
want to emphasise this ! no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is
like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.
The force's dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass
destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have
appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about
the architecture of global security." (Russian President Vladimir Putin, Conference on Security
Policy in Munich in February 2007)
Can you see why Washington gave up on Putin? The speech identifies the United States reckless
behavior as the single greatest threat to global security today. Putin says that the unipolar world-model
which operates from "one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making"
is unacceptable, has no "moral foundation", and "plunges the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts."
The speech is a straightforward repudiation of Washington's lunatic ambition to rule the world, which
is why Putin is presently on America's list of enemies.
Putin's domestic vision also conflicts with US policy, which is dominated by neoliberal, trickle-down,
austerity-crazed, deficit hawkery that transfers the nations wealth to the 1 percent plutocrats at
the top of the economic foodchain. The Russian president has made great strides in reducing poverty,
eliminating illiteracy, improving healthcare, and raising the standard of living for millions of
working people. Here's an excerpt from a speech by Putin that outlines his domestic priorities:
"Russia is a social welfare state .Social policy has many objectives and many dimensions.
It entails providing support for the poor and those who are unable to earn a living for valid
reasons. It means implementing social mobility and providing a level playing field for every person
on the basis of his or her capabilities and talents. The effectiveness of social policy is measured
by whether popular opinion believes the society we live in is a just one or not.
The glaring income disparity is unacceptably high. Every eighth Russian citizen still lives
below the official poverty line .
People, primarily the "middle class," well-educated and well-paid individuals, are dissatisfied
with the level of social services on the whole. The quality of education and healthcare is still
quite low, despite higher budgetary allocations. Services that you have to pay for in these areas
are still rife. The goal of creating a comfortable living environment is still a long way off
The decline in the national workforce and an increasingly ageing population means the efficiency
of social spending has to be increased. We simply have no choice, if we want to preserve and improve
the situation .
Every country looks upon its teachers, doctors, scientists and cultural workers as the
backbone of the "creative class", as the people who contribute to the sustained development of
society and serve as the pillar of public morality .
I believe that healthcare and education reforms are only possible when they guarantee decent
pay for public sector professionals. A doctor, teacher or professor should be able to earn enough
on their basic jobs not to have to seek outside earnings. If we fail to fulfill this condition
our efforts to change the organisation of the economic mechanisms and renew the material base
of these sectors will come to nothing .
Starting on September 1, we will raise the pay of lecturers in state educational establishments
– up to the average salary for the region. In the course of 2013-2018, the average salary of professors
and lecturers will be gradually increased twofold to double the average in the economy .In the
case of doctors and researchers, the target for 2018 is the same as for higher school lecturers
– 200% of the average pay across the region ..
Together with the trade unions we have to consider legislation to broaden the participation
of workers in the management of enterprises. This kind of participation is practiced, for example,
in Germany in the form of what are known as works councils .
In the next few years, we must create a system to help every disabled person who is able
and willing to learn and work find their educational and professional niche in life: from specialised
educational programmes to jobs adapted to an individual's specific requirements .
While incomes are growing, the gap between the richest and the poorest population groups
is decreasing too slowly. Income disparity in Russia is comparable to that in the Untied States
but is considerably higher than in Western Europe. A certain degree of income differentiation
is logical for a mature market economy, but too large a gap can be seen as inequality and can
fuel social tensions. Hence our priority is to reduce material inequality by making social policy
more targeted and effective, but above all by giving people an opportunity to earn enough to ensure
a desirable level of income ..This will allow us to perceive Russia as a more equitable country
where everyone earns his or her income with their own labour and talent .
And the government will provide targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income
or are too young to work .
The government is taking measures to support families' desire to have two or more children
.
It is absolutely unacceptable for the birth of a child to bring a family to the edge of
poverty. A national goal for the next three or four years is to make this totally impossible.
Today the regional governments approve the size of most child benefits, and it should be said
that they are scandalously small in many regions .However, such assistance should not be provided
to families with high incomes (Read the whole speech here:
http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18071/
Sure, it's a political speech, but when was the last time you heard Obama talk about "social
mobility" or "support for the poor" or "glaring income disparity" or "healthcare and education reforms"
(that didn't involve privatization) or "decent pay for public sector professionals" or strengthening
unions or doubling the "salary of professors and lecturers" or increasing "child benefits and education"
or "creating a system to help every disabled person" or "providing targeted assistance to those who
cannot earn an income or are too young to work" etc etc etc. On every issue, Putin's platform is
more progressive than Obama's, and yet, idiot Americans still think President Hopium is working for
them. Right.
Putin's motto is: "Each rouble spent in the social sphere must 'produce justice.'" That alone
proves that he'd make a better president than Obama.
"... Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy. ..."
"... NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessary platform for future wars . Another Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences for the plotters . ..."
"... NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground. All are done openly. When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception that has heard them. With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go. ..."
"HANGZHOU, China : The image of a 5-year-old Syrian boy, dazed and bloodied after being
rescued from an airstrike on rebel-held Aleppo, reverberated around the world last month, a
harrowing reminder that five years after civil war broke out there, Syria remains a charnel
house.
But the reaction was more muted in Washington, where Syria has become a distant disaster
rather than an urgent crisis. President Obama's policy toward Syria has barely budged in the
last year and shows no sign of change for the remainder of his term. The White House has faced
little pressure over the issue,
That frustrates many analysts because they believe that a shift in policy will come only
when Mr. Obama has left office. "Given the tone of this campaign, I doubt the electorate will
be presented with realistic and intelligible options, with respect to Syria," said Frederic
C. Hof, a former adviser on Syria in the administration."
Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy.
The world we see are not festooned with the morbid pictures and the world has not one echo
chamber among its 7 billions that are reverberating with his sad cry .
No American taxpayer is piling pressure on Obama.
Tone of the election doesn't and shouldn't provide option on Syria . Electorates are not asking
to know what America should do.
Next president will introduce something that he wont share w and making them known before the
voters will destroy his chances. Someone shared and was evisecrated by NYT and other as Putin's
Trojan horse .
NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessary platform for future wars . Another
Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean
supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction
years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences
for the plotters .
If Dulles were hanged for role in all the illegal things he had done in Guatemala and Iran, may
be Kennedy would have survived. But his earlier political escapades were also built on something
that were way earlier . Conspiracy keeps on coming back begging for one more round ,for one more
time .
NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground. All are
done openly. When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and
a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception
that has heard them. With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not
allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go.
Neither NYT explains how reckless Trump with nuclear code will start a nuclear war with Putin's
Russia despite being his co conspirator .
Chalabi s daughter exclaimed in early part of 2004 – We are heroes in mistakes. She won't say
it now . Conspirators would love to get the credit and be recognized . It all depends on the success
. First Iraq war, if went bad from beginning, Lantos wouldn't have been reelected . But again
who knows what media can deliver. They delivered Joe Liberman .
"... Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's office said on Thursday he wrote to Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray asking whether the agency provided "defensive briefings" to Trump's team given its ongoing investigation of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager. ..."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the FBI
whether it warned Donald Trump's presidential campaign about alleged attempts by Russia to
infiltrate the campaign.
Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's office said on Thursday he wrote to Federal Bureau of
Investigation Director Christopher Wray asking whether the agency provided "defensive
briefings" to Trump's team given its ongoing investigation of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign
manager.
"If the FBI did provide a defensive briefing or similar warning to the campaign, then that
would raise important questions about how the Trump campaign responded," Grassley wrote in the
letter dated Sept. 20.
If the FBI did not alert the campaign, Grassley said, that would raise "serious questions
about what factors contributed to its decision and why it appears to have been handled
differently in a very similar circumstance involving a previous campaign."
The senator said that according to press reports, U.S. intelligence had raised similar
concerns with John McCain during the Republican senator's 2008 presidential campaign.
"... One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life ..."
The Russians may have developed the capability to create elaborate hoaxes that turn the US
into a laughing stock in the eyes of outsiders Russell O'Phobe
90
For almost a year, Russia's meddling in last year's election, along with collusion with the
Trump campaign, have dominated the political and media landscape. But an explosive new
classified report produced by US intelligence may be about to blow apart the narrative, and
reveal an even bigger story that has been missed in all the commentary so far.
The report was set up to try to answer two questions: firstly, why is it that after nearly a
year, there still hasn't been a single piece of hard evidence to prove either the hacking or
the collusion? And secondly, given this lack of credible evidence, how is it that the US media
and political classes have been talking about nothing else for months and months without any
sign of letting it go, to the point of giving the impression of being obsessed with the
issue?
The report, which was signed off by all 17 agencies ! that's the DIA, CIA, FBI and NSA !
reaches a conclusion which is nothing short of sensational:
"If there hasn't actually been any hard evidence presented of meddling or collusion, we
must ask the question of how and why the entire political and media class have been talking
about nothing else for months.
One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this
cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a
clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have
lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life."
"... So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight. ..."
"... People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority". ..."
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media"
in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure
than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts
in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and
E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news
management.
@Lot Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret
because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected
those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra. Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most
of them will be crazy.
A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in
secret because they already are in control.
Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed
would have damaging repercussions for them.
For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe
even more so than Johnson.
It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites. After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy
vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out
to dry.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
@Chief SeattleSo, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better
recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention.
The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election
to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in
the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling
its proponents to take off their tin foil hats. Note also that the allegations immediately become
"fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid
mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee ,"
without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple
reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, " we are not
quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself:
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7
Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence
US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines.
You can't make this s ** t up.
...In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time
conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst
to the employees or shareholders.
@Alfred1860 I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy
theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about
what are obviously very sacred cows.
People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you
do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have
taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".
In Dispatch 1035-960 mailed to station chiefs on April 1, 1967, the CIA laid out a series of
"talking points" in its memo addressing the "conspiracy theorists" who were questioning the Warren
Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They include the following:
Claim that it "would be impossible to conceal" such a large-scale conspiracy.
Claim that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.
Claim that "no significant new evidence has emerged"
Accuse theorists of falling in love with their theories.
Claimed conspiracy theorists are wedded to their theories before the evidence was in.
Accuse theorists of being politically motivated.
Accuse theorists of being financially motivated.
I have found numerous examples of these exact points being made in televised news segments,
newspapers, magazines and even some academic articles and scholarly books.
Additionally, some of the most influential and frequently-cited authors who are the most critical
of "conspiracy theorists", both academic and lay people, have very direct ties to government,
foundations and other institutions of authority.
While we can't know if the CIA was primarily responsible for the creation of the pejorative,
but what we do know from the Church Committee hearings, was that the Agency did have paid operatives
working inside major media organizations as late as the 1970s. In fact, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper
has acknowledged ties to the CIA
With recent lifting of restrictions on the government's use of domestic propaganda with the
Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization
Act, I think reasonable people would expect this type of pejorative construction to resume if
in fact, it ever ceased.
Literally every article I've ever read about conservatives and/or the conservative movement
within the pages of the New Yorker – and I've read going back decades, unfortunately – has judiciously
referenced 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'.
I mean, EVERY SINGLE article regarding Republicans, conservatives and/or opposition to leftism
has the Hofstadter quote somewhere – it must be a staple on the J-School syllabi.
It seems Prof. Hofstadter was something of an adherent to the Frankfurt School nonsense – Marxism-meets-dime-store-Freud
being every New Yorker writer's stock in trade, of course
@biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
Not least of which is the remarkable inactivity of the FBI: for example "The FBI has never
questioned Assange [he
confirms that] or Murray" and neither has it ever looked at the DNC servers.
Nonetheless, every time you think the hysteria has gone as far as it can, it goes a bit
farther: Morgan Freeland joins the
circus.
The key problem with the "official" story of DNS hack is the role of Crowdstrike and
strangely coincident murder of Seth Rich. Que bono analysis here might also help: the
main beneficiary of "Russian hack" story was Hillary camp as it allowed them to put a smoke screen
shadowing allegation that they nefariously has thrown Sanders under the bus. A very serious
allegation which has substantial supporting evidence. In a way they were fighting for their
lives. Also Imran Awan
story is omitted from the official narrative. Was not this another proved large scale hacking case?
They also have a motive and opportunity in DNC case.
Notable quotes:
"... The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't involved. There's nothing more to it than that. ..."
"... As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. ..."
"... He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders' ..."
"... Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists." . ..."
"... Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election. ..."
"... 'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that." ..."
"... Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year now. ..."
"... But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case? ..."
"... Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump? How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator called "The crime of the century"? ..."
"... "It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden) ..."
"... What the author is saying is that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple. ..."
"... But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists. Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers? ..."
"... The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense. ..."
"... "The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access. ..."
"... 4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ." ..."
"... The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious doubt on their conclusions? ..."
"... It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people. ..."
"... "Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. – That information has never been disclosed." ..."
"... What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg. ..."
"... Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest. ..."
"... Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.) and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome. Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global rival. ..."
"... Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations. Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016. The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance." In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers were hacked from Romania.) ..."
"... "There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation) ..."
"... Read the whole report here: " Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", Skip Folden, Word Press. ..."
A new report by a retired IT executive at IBM, debunks the claim that Russia interfered in the
2016 presidential campaign by hacking Democratic computers and circulating damaging information about
Hillary Clinton. The report, which is titled "
The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian
Hacking Charge ", provides a rigorous examination of the wobbly allegations upon which the hacking
theory is based, as well as a point by point rejection of the primary claims which, in the final
analysis, fail to pass the smell test. While the report is worth reading in full, our intention is
to zero-in on the parts of the text that disprove the claims that Russia meddled in US elections
or hacked the servers at the DNC.
Let's start with the fact that there are at least two credible witnesses who claim to know who
took the DNC emails and transferred them to WikiLeaks. We're talking about WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange and WikiLeaks ally, Craig Murray. No one is in a better position to know who actually took
the emails than Assange, and yet, Assange has repeatedly said that Russia was not the source. Check
out this clip from the report:
Assange has been adamant all along that the Russian government was not a source; it was a
non-state player.
ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party
HANNITY (Conservative talk show host): Can you say to the American people unequivocally that
you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the American
people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia
ASSANGE: Yes.
HANNITY: or anybody associated with Russia?
ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly over the last two months, that our source
is not the Russian government and it is not a state party
("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
Can you think of a more credible witness than Julian Assange? The man has devoted his entire adult
life to exposing the truth about government despite the risks his actions pose to his own personal
safety. In fact, he is currently holed up at the Ecuador embassy in London for defending the public's
right to know what their government is up to. Does anyone seriously think that a man like that would
deliberately lie just to protect Russia's reputation?
No, of course not, and the new report backs him up on this matter. It states: "No where in the
Intelligence Community's Assessment (ICA) was there any evidence of any connection between Russia
and WikiLeaks." The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't
involved. There's nothing more to it than that.
As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks
with the DNC emails. Check out this except from an article at The Daily Mail:
(Murray) "flew to Washington, D.C. for emails. He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near
American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust
at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field
against Bernie Sanders'
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside
leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks
published did not come from that,' Murray insists." .
Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was
given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S.
presidential election.
'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they
must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC,
the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that."
(EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide
Clinton emails", Daily Mail)
Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible
witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish
whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already
done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year
now.
But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI
has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's
like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case?
Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed
political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't
that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump?
How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator
called "The crime of the century"?
Here's something else from the report that's worth mulling over:
"It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back
to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the
ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent
Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
This is a crucial point, so let's rephrase that in simple English. What the author is saying is
that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple.
But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that
connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists.
Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence
that Russia hacked the DNC servers?
Why? Why this conspiracy of silence on a matter that is so fundamental to the case that the NSA
and the other Intel agencies are trying to make?
The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why
else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense.
According to the media, Intelligence agents familiar with the matter have "high confidence' that
Russia was involved.
Okay, but where's the proof? You can't expect to build a case against a foreign government and
a sitting president with just "high confidence". You need facts, evidence, proof. Where's the beef?
We already mentioned how the FBI never bothered to question the only eyewitnesses in the case.
That's odd enough, but what's even stranger is the fact that the FBI never seized the DNC's servers
so they could conduct a forensic examination of them. What's that all about? Here's an excerpt from
the report:
"The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC
server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access.
The apparent single source of information on the purported DNC intrusion(s) was from Crowdstrike.
3. Crowdstrike is a cyber security firm hired by the Democratic Party.
4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only
picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ."
( "The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge)
Have you ever read anything more ridiculous in your life? The FBI's negligence in this case goes
beyond anything I've ever seen before. Imagine if a murder was committed in the apartment next to
you and the FBI was called in to investigate. But when they arrive at the scene of the crime, they're
blocked at the door by the victim's roommate who refuses to let them in. Speaking through the door,
the roommate assures the agents that the victim was shot dead with a single bullet to the head, and
that the smoking gun that was used in the murder is still on the floor. But "don't worry", says the
obstructing roommate, "I've already photographed the whole thing and I'll send you the pictures as
soon as I get the chance."
Do you really think the agents would put up with such nonsense?
Never! They'd kick down the door, slap the roommate in handcuffs, cordon-off the murder scene,
and start digging-around for clues. That's what they'd do. And yet we are supposed to believe that
in the biggest case of the decade, a case that that allegedly involves foreign espionage and presidential
treason, that the FBI has made no serious effort to secure the servers that were allegedly hacked
by Russia?
The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within
their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can
trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious
doubt on their conclusions?
It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to
"stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole
Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are
all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.
Here's another interesting clip from the report:
"Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged
email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and
May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. –
That information has never been disclosed."
("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
Read that excerpt over again. It's mind boggling. What Carter is saying is that, they have nothing,
no evidence, no proof, no nothing. If you don't have a disk image, then what do you have?
You have nothing, that's what. Which means that everything we've read is 100 percent conjecture,
not a shred of evidence anywhere. Which is why the focus has shifted to Manafort, Flynn, Trump Jr
and the goofy Russian lawyer?
Who gives a rip about Manafort? Seriously? The investigation started off with grave allegations
of foreign espionage and presidential collusion (treason?) and quickly downshifted to the illicit
financial dealings of someone the American people could care less about. Talk about mission creep!
What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia
to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year
of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg.
A few words about the ICA Report
Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to
provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The
media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment
and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest.
Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated
in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)
and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director
hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome.
Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention
was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global
rival. And the report was moderately successful in that regard too, except for one paradoxical
disclaimer that appeared on page 13. Here it is:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.
Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well
as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
What the authors are saying is that, 'Everything you read in this report could be complete baloney
because it's all based on conjecture, speculation and guesswork.'
Isn't that what they're saying? Why would anyone waste their time reading a report when the authors
openly admit that their grasp of what happened is "incomplete or fragmentary" and they have no "proof"
of anything?
Gregory Copley, President, International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) summed it up best
when he said: "This is a highly politically motivated and a subjective report which was issued by
the intelligence community. does not present evidence of successful or even an attempt to actually
actively manipulate the election process."
Like we said, it's all baloney.
Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations.
Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016.
The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance."
In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they
were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence
that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers
were hacked from Romania.)
The Nation summed it up perfectly in this brief paragraph:
"There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not
by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed
locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside
job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last
Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation)
Bingo.
Bottom line: A dedicated group of independent researchers and former Intel agents joined forces
and produced the first hard evidence that "the official narrative implicating Russia" is wrong. This
is a stunning development that will, in time, cut through the fog of government propaganda and reveal
the truth. Skip Folden's report is an important contribution to that same effort.
In related news, Craig Murray is now being sued for libel in the UK over specious accusations
stemming from the Jeremy Corbyn 'anti-Semitism' scandal. Murry writes:
I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate
Editor of the Daily Mail Online. Mr Wallis Simons is demanding Ł40,000 in damages and the High
Court has approved over Ł100,000 in costs for Mark Lewis, Mr Wallis Simons' lawyer. I may become
liable for all of this should I lose the case, and furthermore I have no money to pay for my
defence. I am currently a defendant in person. This case has the potential to bankrupt me and
blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with
bankruptcy.
Britain is notorious for having libel laws with a reversed burden of proof , meaning
that the defendant (in this case, Murray) must prove himself innocent! Some shady plaintiffs,
when jurisdiction-shopping for a libel case, have been known to try and file libel charges in
Britain for this very reason.
The ICA report was a joke to anyone with rudimentary internet skills. It had a page of infographics
featuring the iconic hacker-in-a-hoodie, a short list of perps ("hairyBear69″ etc etc) and the
rest of it looked like a generic corporate PowerPoint on good cyber security practices. The media
of course acted like it was all damning evidence of collusion.
Reading Unz Review you will be better off replacing the word "Jew" with the term "the member
of financial oligarchy". That's also will be more correct as tribal interests of financial oligarchy
are the same as attributed to Jews in Protocols of Zion Elders...
The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part
in the assessment and that it's (sic) conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis
of America's finest.
Well, at the time, I, and probably most other people of moderate intelligence, said: "It is
highly unlikely that all seventeen intelligence agencies have carried out independent investigations
and come to identical conclusions without any of them being able to produce hard evidence. So
this can safely be dismissed as bullshit."
People are not stupid, just like almost no one believed in Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Apparently Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were the only people who were fooled. And Hillary
Clinton also believed that she came under fire in Serbia, having been sent as First Lady to a
place where it was too dangerous for the President to go, even though he had been there in person
only a few months earlier.
The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand
down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole
Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media
are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.
I'm not sure that the FBI and CIA operatives are having a good laugh. To some extent they ARE
the American people, and will have some basic ideas of justice and honesty. Their political masters
can bribe and coerce them but there are limits to the efficiency of a (US) system run on fear
and greed.
Despite the massive amount of evidence exposing the fraudulent nature of the story the media
keeps going along based on the assumption that the lies are facts. Many if not most of those who
consume the media propaganda continue to believe this crap. It is a sort of 21st century iteration
of Goebbels propaganda but with the risk of nuclear war.
Until recently, people believed. They believed in The System (and the System's Narrative) more
fervently than did their 14th Century European ancestors believe in Christianity.
They believed we could all get rich by Government and corporations issuing more and more and
more debt. They believed that a promise to pay future cash flows, from Social Security or a Teacher's
Pension or a Treasury Bond maturing, it was ALL as certain as if the money was already sitting
on a table in front of their eyes.
Every institution in the West is being destroyed from within by the very people who staff it
and who count on it for financial income. Those working in The News make stuff up out of whole
cloth, apparently believing that a public that sees their output as fiction will continue to fund
the channel that accrues to their paycheck. The same holds true of FB and social media. Government
officials can't keep their lies straight anymore, and everywhere we look we see a wave of awakening,
as members of the public each come to reframe that which they can see.
We are past apogee on the wave of pathological trust. The path ahead is of growing distrust,
and while healthy in part, it will likely overshoot a better place by as much on the downside
as it trust overshot wisdom on the upside.
View everything with distrust and suspicion; by doing so now, you'll be the rush.
It's exasperating but the strategy from the beginning has been psychological, not evidence-based,
and it has been working.
All they have to do is keep repeating the three words Russia, Trump, and Hacking in close proximity
to one another. They got the vast majority of people to believe Saddam Hussein did 9/11. I visit
my mother in a retirement home and the mainstream television media has them completely in their
grip.
I occasionally check in with the nauseating mainstream press or talking head shows, and watched
a gaggle of clowns devolve into a shouting match over Trump/Russia. It was perfectly choreographed
to make sure no coherent sentence, no complete thought was ever uttered. It was just noise – which
is what the CIA is paying for and the producers are serving up.
In the meantime the Awan spy ring in Congress is being investigated by citizen journalists
and studiously ignored by both Congress and the media. Does that tell you anything? They're mostly
either safely blackmailed or paid off. The FBI can't find a crime being committed right in front
of them in broad daylight so long as the criminal is helping out the country with weapons deliveries
to Al Qaeda and ISIS, opium from Afghanistan, and other charitable efforts.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into
the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that
is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it
was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods
to Murray.
"There is no credible doubt that Russia attacked our election infrastructure in 2016," said
Gillibrand. "We need a public accounting of how they were able to do it so effectively, and
how we can protect our country when Russia or any other nation tries to attack us again. The
clock is ticking before our next election, and these questions are urgent. We need to be able
to defend ourselves against threats to our elections, our democracy, and our sacred right to
vote. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation to create a 9/11-style Commission
to defend our democracy and protect ourselves against future attacks on our country."
Lying and not realising you created the problem in the first place (Closed-source Diebold QUALITY
machines etc.)
@CalDre Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this
article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker
walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because
that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed
it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods
to Murray.
This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you
come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind
the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
@El Dato I can't remember hearing much about Sibel Edmond's revelations either recently.
That story disappeared faster than Oswald exiting a bookstore.
At least she's still alive. So true, El Dato. Even after the 29 pages came out and pointed
to Saudi Arabian involvement like suspected, it was just dropped.
Or any number of other ghastly acts like Fast and Furious, the IRS and other organs of government
being used to harass and suppress. We overthrew Ukraine and the mockingbird media made it sound
like it was a Russian invasion, the story could not have been more backwards.
It's the Church Committee, Iran-Contra, and the Rosenberg's except bigger. Judicial Watch keeps
digging out pay-to-play emails. A person would have to be brain dead not to see Comey obstructed
investigations and let them destroy evidence. It is clear Congressmen are implicated directly,
both parties, Clinton and McCain represent all the worst of our corruption. Aiding Al Qaeda and
ISIS.
We have whole shipping containers at a time going to and fro from our ports under diplomatic
immunity. Talk about a grotesque corruption of the diplomatic "pouch" immunity. The USSR did its
industrial and defense espionage through diplomatic immunity, read Major Jordan's Diaries on the
ratline through Alaska via the Lend-Lease program. But now instead of brief cases, it is international
shipping containers.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you come
from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the
hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
You want us to reverse the burden of proof
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second,
it's not reversing the burden of proof – in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of
proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden
of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead,
you know.
in 1947 the national security act was passed which meant politicians can lie to the
American
public as long as the lie is to protect national security. everything is a national security issue
now. Not that politicians weren't liars before the act. but today they have cover. Remember james clapper's lies on tv?
But he also lied to congress. Congress has no balls or they would have prosecuted him. they have
given up their power, of which they have much. particularly when it comes to war. congress declares
it; congress funds it; congress can end it. The bums we elect just know to do one thing – hold out their hands.
I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell it is,
but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich
(?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC's
skivvies.
@JackOH I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell
it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth
Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the
DNC's skivvies. Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew,
being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.
Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand
him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even
posthumous to be effective.
Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim
Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that
because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate
the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me.
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's
not reversing the burden of proof - in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof"
only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof
submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you
know.
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it.
In a technical sense, you are right. Whitney did once above use (or misuse, actually) the word
'disprove' to mean that the other side had failed to prove it's case. But in our legal system,
simply showing that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case is quite sufficient to get your
man acquitted. You don't have to have proof positive of your man's innocence, so long as the prosecution
has no proof of his guilt. Why? Because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Whitney's
semantic gaffe here doesn't change that fundamental fact.
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead,
you know.
He confirmed having met the leaker in person inside the US, though it's true he never mentions
Rich by name. Wikileaks strives to protect the anonymity of their sources wherever possible. However–and
rather tellingly–Assange did offer a cash reward for information leading the arrest of Rich's
murderer(s). Again, Assange did not come out and say plainly that Rich was the source, but it's
hard to imagine him offering a reward for just anybody out there in world with no connection to
Wikileaks whatsoever.
And while Craig Murray may still be alive, as I pointed out above in comment #1, he is now
facing a potentially ruinous trial in Britain. A bit like the mysterious Swedish rape allegations
against Assange, one could argue that this is all just some remarkably timed coincidence; but
then again, it could just as well be the system's way of signalling its displeasure with Murray
for cooperating with Wikileaks.
Microchip, a Twitter user who uses several different accounts and is routinely banned from
the site, told POLITICO the pro-Trump rooms help him spread racist and otherwise controversial
material. His dual aims are to prod the left and entice the media into covering the latest
online controversy he helped stoke.
Microchip said he started several rooms in November 2015. A handful of people in other rooms
confirmed that he was an "early player." But he has been blocked from many rooms because of
his "wild claims," one said, as well as anti-Semitic and inflammatory remarks.
[...] But Microchip, who described himself as an "atheist liberal that just hates immigration"
and transgender people, has open contempt for most of Trump's base.
"Conservatives are generally morons," he said. "It's like herding cats."
He's just as frank about what he's peddling to Trump supporters.
"You know how I know they're spreading lies?" Microchip asked one die-hard this week. "Because
I do the same thing, it's fake news and spin."
[...]
Lotan said Microchip's claims explain the link between the boomer generation in the mainstream
rooms and the younger meme producers on 4chan and reddit.
"The boomers are there, thirsty for ammunition. And 4chan is so good at generating ammunition,"
Lotan said. "But the boomers will not go to 4chan."
People in the mainstream pro-Trump rooms said Microchip had not been active there for many
months. In turn, Microchip said he maintains pseudonymous accounts to hide his identity
from "brain dead" Trump supporters.
@CalDre Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew,
being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.
Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand
him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even
posthumous to be effective.
Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim
Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that
because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate
the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me. CalDre, thanks. This whole
story stinks badly, and the "Russian hack" blather put out on the TV blab shows by Washington
gamesmen just seems to me self-serving careerism.
We're asked to believe that Russian intelligence has gathered damaging information on Hillary
Clinton, then the front-runner among Democrat candidates, by hacking the DNC's computers. Then,
instead of reserving this information to blackmail a future President Hillary Clinton, they turn
the information over to Julian Assange. Why in hell would I, i. e ., Russian intelligence,
squander good leverage over President Hillary? Are we expected to believe Russian intelligence
actually thought it could swing an election by using Assange as a sort of sub-contractor?
Seth Rich, on the other hand, is an idealistic, low-level guy who has a strong motive to hurt
the organization that's betrayed him.
As I mentioned, my knowledge of the story is pretty superficial, but it really does seem to
me a pile of horse dung.
Even if Russia tried to interfere in USA elections, what is it in comparison with the CIA organising
the murder of Allende, or Soros trying to change Hungarian law ?
This is great news. The fraudulent stories about Russia and Trump are great news. The other
deep state and shadow government false propaganda are great news. This is because the level of
this false propaganda is so low, so poor, so unbelievable, that sane people wake up and withdraw
any allegiance to the sources of this misinformation. It is great news, because many of the politically
insane citizens are becoming sane due to the misinformation being so obviously a pack of lies,
that even they have to think differently.
By the way, Great Article!
@Seamus Padraig Forgive me if I am out of date but to say that there is a reverse burden of
proof in libel cases in Britain (sic – Scotland too?) is BS according to my recollection. (I set
aside the possibility that you S P are confusing a civil tort action with a criminal prosecution
although your use of the wňrd "innocence" suggests that you may be).
Here's how it was for at least 150 years. Once the court decided that the words complained
of were defamatory so at least some general damages were possibly claimable (maybe a farthing
which meant the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's costs) the defendant had several possible
avenues of defence. One was that the words were true. If you call a man a thief you have committed
an assault on his reputation and you had better have some justification for that. Are you really
complaining about that? Complain all you like about so-called "stop writs" where a (typically)
rich plaintiff starts proceedings which he suspects the defendant will not have the means to defend
properly, and then just sits on the cade having achieved intimidation.
Then there is the defense of "fair comment on a matter of public interest" which is available
to the defendant even if he can't prove the truth of his libel. Logically that can't succeed if
the defendant is found to have been actuated by malice.
Finally, without pretending to cover the whole subject, the defendant can contend and provide
evidence that the plaintiff had no good reputation to lose.
Having read the link I see that it does look like a move to shut him up. If the plaintiff wanted
real compensation he would be suing Sky Television which didn't cut the defamatory remarks. Or
has that been settled by an apology – which wouldn't be usual for Sky would it?
I am intrigued by the Ł100,000 costs approved by the court. Presumably this is some procedural
innovation which was introduced well after I learned about libel actions and which could be justified
.. except it surely leaves the law looking like an ass if the damages clImed are only Ł40,000!
Finally .can you tell us what the actual libel was? What did Murray say? This is a US site
so the First Amendment should look after us.
The most interesting thing in your Comment is what you claimed to have found
by your "background checks" on the new Senator Obama. What can you tell us to substantiate the
novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA What sources? What relationships?
What facts?
"... Soros you say. I wondered why it reminded me of the "Color Revolutions" of eastern Europe. I suppose they'd be banging pots and pans together except their utensils of choice are Styrofoam take-out containers. ..."
"... "Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," Sanders said in a statement. "People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer." ..."
"... Listen to this final Trump ad. Except for the illegal immigration sentence, this is vintage Sanders ..."
"... I don't think Trump really matters at the moment. What happened to the Borg (my first use of this term, still not sure) is what is important. It doesn't matter if Trump is a Sheldon Adelson lap dog, the MSM has been shamed, the Anglo-Zionists have coped a reversal, and the American people have woken from a long slumber. Stop following the bouncing ball, the world has caught up to itself is a giant leap, the future is no longer written. ..."
"The Art of the Deal?" revisited on 6 September 2017 I posted this just after DJT became president. In light of today's DJT
agreement with the Democrats over McConnell and Ryans' heads it seems of continued relevance.
pl
**************
"First, the President-elect must make a stab at uniting the country, after
a scorched-earth campaign in which he consciously tore at the nation's gender, racial and
economic fault lines to build a movement to win power. He's practicing some unusual humility.
"I pledge to every citizen of our lands that I will be the president for the American people,"
Trump said in his victory speech Tuesday. "For those who have chosen not to support me in the
past, for which there were a few people, I'm reaching out to you for your guidance and your
help so we can work together and unify our great country." But his challenges were on clear
display Wednesday as protests
broke out from Boston to Los Angeles." ------------- The crazies with their foreheads
painted "not my president" don't bother me. They can march around the big cities all they want.
Rain will come. Snow and wind will come and they will go home. The progressive cause has taken
a mighty hit but it will re-assert itself.
There are two real question facing the US as to what sort of president will Trump be.
1. Thus far he looks to me to be a man who will play a dominan role deciding major issues
himself and will make deals with whomever has the power to entable him to reach his goals.
IMO that means that the Republicans in Congress will either go along with Trump's
legislative proposals or see Trump go across the aisle to seek votes.
A good example would be whatever it is that Trump decides that he wants to do about the
obvious failure that is the ACA, presently sinking under the weight of far higher costs than
expected and smaller enrollments. Democrats understand that the law must be modified for it to
survive and to preserve the increase in health care coverage that it has brought. The hardline
Republicans in both Houses of Congress want to destroy Obamacare and they have no realistic
alternative other than the usual blather about private health accounts. Trump will not want to
alienate his working class followers. Why would Trump not make a deal with the Democrats to get
what he wants and needs?
2. There is also a danger that the neocon faction among Trump's advisers will succeed in
achieving power in his cabinet. The appointment of John Bolton to State, would be ,IMO, an
unmitigated disaster. pl
I have a bit of soft spot for Gingrich: I've found him, at least in his Congressional career,
to be very unprincipled in a good way, meaning that he is willing to negotiate and cut deals
when he feels is necessary, rather than hold on to his "principles" like a madman to the end,
and ironically, is willing to pay a high personal price for the sake of compromise. That,
plus, his usually good read of the political terrain can make him a very good advisor,
although his total lack of tact and uncanny ability to stuff both feet into his mouth make
for a bad front man.
I realized this during the Clinton impeachment fight: he basically lost speakership
because he tried to go behind other Republican leaders' backs to work out a compromise for
censure with the Democratic leaders, rather than go ahead with the impeachment vote. Other
Republican leaders did not take kindly to it and ousted him, but, however much that act of
spite--the impeachment vote supported only by Republicans--might have satisfied their
self-righteousness, it did the Republicans no good, while a bipartisan censure might have
carried real political bite in the long term.
With Move On on the move, it seems that America could ironically be experiencing its very own
Color Revolution. The Last Color Revolution on Earth! Which I suppose is poetic justice.
As for the progressives, Bernie already seems to be putting the message out. And after
their major defeat, I doubt if the neo-con and neo-liberal Clintonistas will have much sway
within the party. Bernie's chosen successor and Elizabeth Warren would both be serious
challengers.
Being still on some of the so called democratic organization mailing list, last night I got
an email for move on asking supporters to attend anti-Trump demonstrations all over the
country.
They even had a zip code link to where you could find. Demonstration/ gathering near you some
in private residences. Their agenda and Is to pressure Trump early on, from what I learned on
how Trump beat them on the poles, I don't think or hope they can succeed.
Soros you say. I wondered why it reminded me of the "Color Revolutions" of eastern Europe.
I suppose they'd be banging pots and pans together except their utensils of choice are
Styrofoam take-out containers.
There are probably many powerful people who believe they won't be able to manipulate our
president-elect. I suspect that Tel Aviv would much rather deal with Mike Pense than the
Donald. I'm not a religious person but I think I'll start praying for Trump's health.
I remember Nixon supposedly saying he selected Agnew as his vice president because no one
would try to assassinate him because they'd get Spiro.
Seeing the winner of his first
presidential campaign getting shot probably made him much more aware of that possibility than
the average citizen. I don't know if he chose Spiro for that reason but it was interesting
that Agnew was removed just before his administration came to an end.
No- they were spontaneous after the election- the kid of a friend of mine at one of the
California universities reported that.
The Colonel is spot on about Bolton -- appointing him to State would be an unmitigated
disaster. Check his history- in addition to being an incompetent manager -- he is one of those who puts the interests of
another country ahead of the USA...
There's a natural tendency to over extrapolate on the state of the progressive cause or
liberalism in America from the election result. The election was lost by the democratic
establishment which, while it has its liberal or progressive elements, is firmly a
corporatist, statist organization. The presidency and the senate, though probably not the
house, were lost by an ingrown and complacent party bent on crowning their seriously flawed
queen. We will never know for sure - but if they had put up Biden instead of shoving him
aside, we'd still be talking about the fate of the republican party. Bernie would have been a
wild card, but the primaries showed him getting lots of votes in the places that put Trump
into the whitehouse.
It will be interesting to see how positive everyone remains once the Republicans own the
show for a few years. Will everyone on this board still be so glowing with what appears to be
their apparent full embrace of Israel's priorities? If we pull the Iran deal and start the
air campaign? When those manufacturing and coal mining jobs don't come flooding back?
It was a devil's choice and not the outcome I would have wanted, however half heartedly,
so I'm keeping an open mind. Trump has no fixed core beliefs and revels in pissing up
anyone's leg whenever he feels like it, and that might be a feature not a bug. At this
juncture, I'm more concerned with the people to whom he's going to delegate so much. Those
guys we've seen in action for long enough to be very worried....
"Sanders: I'm 'Prepared To Work With' Trump On Economic Issues
"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired
of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," Sanders said
in a statement. "People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent
paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal
income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while
the very rich become much richer."
"To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of
working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To
the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will
vigorously oppose him," Sanders added."
God, I honestly hope that kind of cooperation works out--Democratic deplorables working
together with the Republican deplorables, for the betterment of the country. The stage is set
for that kind of enterprise, now that both parties' elites lie in wreck humbled.
I don't think Trump really matters at the moment. What happened to the Borg (my first use of
this term, still not sure) is what is important. It doesn't matter if Trump is a Sheldon
Adelson lap dog, the MSM has been shamed, the Anglo-Zionists have coped a reversal, and the
American people have woken from a long slumber. Stop following the bouncing ball, the world
has caught up to itself is a giant leap, the future is no longer written.
None of the commenters understand that CIA (which is more of Wall Street agency then
state agency) has also reasons to interfere in elections. And Russian interference can be a
very convenient smoke screen. JFK assassination proved this long ago. Remember Oswald
(who probably was of CIA payroll) Russian trace.
Notable quotes:
"... When it comes to our nation's security Congress spares no expense, no matter how large, to ensure we have the best military systems in the world. But when it comes to securing the most fundamental structure of our democratic process, our electoral process, nothing but crickets! Why is that? ..."
"... That we choose not to conduct fair elections suggests that for enough of those responsible for conducting an election the outcome of an election still is too important to be left to the voters. I don't expect a change. ..."
"... Stop e-voting and return to paper ballot only! ..."
"... Our national elections are exercises in deception. We spend billions tilting the playing field -- on things ranging from gerrymandering to swift-boating. ..."
In Oregon, we have vote by mail for all elections. A ballot arrives in the mail weeks
before the election and you have plenty of time to research the issues and candidates if you
haven't already. You can return your ballot by US mail or at the local library or voting
office. No election day lines, no election day work issues. There is a paper trail for
ballots. Not sure why the other states don't adopt this method...oh, wait, maybe I do.
angfil, Arizona 1 day ago
With all of the voting problems in federal elections, why aren't federal elections
conducted by the feds?Maybe that would help to keep voting fair. Or is that too much to
expect from the feds? Especially in the present circumstances.
Jean, Montclair, VA 1 day ago
1. I work elections, have for years, and I implore every citizen to confirm their
registration before every election.
Having someone mysteriously disappear from the rolls is upsetting for all of us involved in
the process--but especially for the spurned voter.
2. If spurned, vote provisionally when offered.
3. Do not rely on the DMV for address changes or registration. ALWAYS confirm that you are
properly registered before each election.
medianone, usa 1 day ago
If this isn't a clarion call for suspending e-voting and returning to paper only balloting
until a new cyber secure platform is designed and implemented, I don't know what is.
The security firewall across thousands of local precincts is porous and susceptible to
foreign state actors, or domestic hackers operating at levels light years ahead of them.
When it comes to our nation's security Congress spares no expense, no matter how
large, to ensure we have the best military systems in the world. But when it comes to
securing the most fundamental structure of our democratic process, our electoral process,
nothing but crickets! Why is that?
Republicans show zero interest in securing our elections. Maybe the Democrats should make
this a top priority in the upcoming budget battles next month. Dollar for dollar parity
spending on a new secure voting system to match against Trump's border wall project.
It would do more to safeguard American democracy than a few miles of fence.
Doug Karo, Durham, NH 23 hours ago
The excuse of not knowing how to conduct a fair and effective election no longer is worth
much. We know how to conduct much fairer and effective elections and it is not that hard.
That we choose not to conduct fair elections suggests that for enough of those responsible
for conducting an election the outcome of an election still is too important to be left to
the voters. I don't expect a change.
Zoned, NC 23 hours ago
I have decided to change my party affiliation to Independent as a safeguard against
partisan political chicanery.
Even with mail in ballots and a paper trail, there is a point at which votes are counted
by a machine that can be tampered with. That is why we need a new Congress in the next
election that will make the popular vote and federal safeguards part of their platform and
follow through.
It is an embarrassment in front of the world that our country's judiciary allows
gerrymandering and our votes are tampered with. Who are we to monitor third world country
elections when our own election are no better?
Lisa, Canada 20 hours ago
Stop e-voting and return to paper ballot only!
Option one: Walk (or drive) to the voting booth located in your neighborhood's voting
office.
Option two: Vote by postal mail for all elections. You can return your ballot by US mail or
at the local library or voting office.
No election day lines, no election day work issues. There is a paper trail for ballots.
Simple and more difficult to hack that way!
Tell your State's constituency to only use or adopt these methods.
No e-voting anymore.
Our national elections are exercises in deception. We spend billions tilting the playing field -- on things ranging from gerrymandering to
swift-boating.
Who's chiefly responsible for this sorry state? Four culprits are:
Our two-party system. It breeds polarization, disgust, cynicism, apathy.
The media -- namely, it's superficiality. "Horse race" coverage focuses on campaigning.
Why policy matters gets ignored.
The length of our national campaigns. They should take three months, start to
finish.
Us (the vast majority of us). We like the superficiality, the mess, the stupidity.
Let's admit it.
The presidential election is not the only thing that matters in election integrity. We
vote for governors, senators and representatives, both state and federal as well as local
officials. If hacking is systematically reducing some peoples' ability to vote, by
interfering with registration rolls, giving false information about polling places or
altering the counts even in a small way, like 1 or 2 per cent, the effect on our government
would be enormous. It's not all and only about Trump.
We better get control over this problem, and make no mistake it is a problem, and we
better do it before the next election.
Interference in the management of valid voter roles, weak security of the ballot, and
gerrymandering are perhaps the biggest threats our democracy has ever faced.
I'm not so sanguine that reverting to paper is the panacea that other commenters seem to
think. I do believe that we must take steps immediately to verify our voter roles in an
inclusive fashion. I'd rather see a single invalid voter included, that have many valid
voters excluded.
We should all strongly support any attempts to secure the ballot through means of
technology, physical ballot or follow-up verification. The electorate might have more faith
in the process if the got a receipt so they were positive their vote had been properly and
accurately tallied.
As far as gerrymandering ... tough problem. A lasting non-partisan solution is what we
need, and this repeated recourse to the courts is only a bandaid fix. Maybe if we went to a
strictly numerical population and geographic based technique, one that would remove all
politics from the equation, we'd have a more fair way of setting electoral districts.
Unfortunately that would most likely make everyone unhappy.
NYT = neocon/neolib fear mongering and neo-McCarthyism.
If we assume that Russians can control election machine, the question arise about the CIA
role in the US elections. They are much more powerful and that's their home turf. And they
can pretend to be Russians of Chinese at will. Then they can cry "Thief" to divert
attention. Does this that promoting Russia hacking story
they implicitly reveal to us that elections are controlled by Deep State and electronic voting
machines and voter rosters are just a tool to this end. They allow to get rid of human vote counting
and that alone makes hijacking of the election results really easy. machine magically calculates the
votes and you are done. As Stalin said it doesn't matter how people are voting, what matters is
who is calculating the votes.
Dems should concentrate on removing neoliberal/Clinton wing of the Party from the leadership and
making it at lease "A New Deal" Party, not sold to Wall Steer bunch of fear
mongering neocons.
Anti-Russian campaign is designed to sabotage those efforts.
Notable quotes:
"... All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various innocent causes ..."
"... Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems: ..."
"... The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by the editors of the New York Times. ..."
"... The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services) ..."
"... The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence for them. In many cases they hide behind " intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments" of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and not reported at all. ..."
"... "Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this. ..."
"... At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines, and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian hacking"! ..."
"... The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians? ..."
The last piece
pointed out that the NYT headline "
U.N. Peacekeepers in Lebanon Get Stronger Inspection Powers for Hezbollah Arms " was 100% fake
news. The UNIFIL U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon were not getting any stronger inspection powers. The
relevant UN Security Resolution, which renewed UNIFIL's mandate, had made no such changes. No further
inspection powers were authorized.
Today we find another similarly
lying headline in the New York Times.
Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny
By NICOLE PERLROTH, MICHAEL WINES and MATTHEW ROSENBERGSEPT. 1, 2017
The piece is about minor technical election trouble in a district irrelevant to the presidential
election outcome. Contradicting the headline it notes in paragraph five:
There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns -- local officials blamed human error and
software malfunctions -- and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a
Russian role in it
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with
computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state,"
said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House.
"If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research
and investigation, and you may not find out even then."
...
the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book
software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.
All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more
reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various
innocent causes. The officials handling these systems deny that any "Russian hacking" was involved.
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general
election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:
Despite the disruptions, a record number of votes were cast in Durham, following a pattern there
of overwhelming support for Democratic presidential candidates , this time Hillary Clinton.
The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference
and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically
irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to
paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by
the editors of the New York Times.
This scheme is the gist of ALL reporting about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S. presidential
election. There exists zero evidence that Russia was involved in anything related to it. No evidence
-none at all- links the publishing of DNC papers or of Clinton counselor Podesta's emails to Russia.
Thousands of other circumstances, people or political entities might have had their hands in the
issue. There is
zero evidence that Russia was involved at all.
The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic
partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services)
to:
cover up for Hillary Clinton's and
the DNC's failure in the election and to
build up Russia as a public enemy to justify unnecessary military spending and other imperial
racketeering.
The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence
for them. In many cases they hide behind "
intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments"
of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and
not reported at all.
Posted by b on September 1, 2017 at 11:26 PM |
Permalink
Look at what happened today in San Francisco - after ordering the Russians to shut down their
embassy there in an unreasonably short timeframe, they then had the fire department respond to
smoke coming out of the chimney of the building. Conveniently this brings attention to the situation
and continues the narrative of 'ongoing conflict' to the American people.
The end of this story
has already decided. It didn't matter who won the election, it doesn't matter that the people
chose the candidate who wanted peace, and it doesn't matter that there wasn't any Russian election
hacking.
"Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against
the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly
hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this.
At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines,
and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian
hacking"!
The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what
they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are
loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians?
Yes, of course.....thats the plan.....is it working?
If not, invade Venezuela on some pretext and claim ownership of their oil....someone has to
make Israel look reasonable.
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with
computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state,"
said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House.
"If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research
and investigation, and you may not find out even then."
...
the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book
software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.
They don't even know what happened. Best blame it on the Russians anyway.
B of course realizes that the headline of an article is almost never written by author but by
an editor.
Such as blatant nonsense at NYT and elsewhere I think is possible when author wanting to get
published on good NYT page would lie to editor about its contents.
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does
not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure
{actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations
however baseless.
...
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does
not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure
{actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations
however baseless.
Posted by: Kalen | Sep 2, 2017 3:22:15 AM | 6
I like the theory that NYT's sub-editors are too lazy/busy/careless to read the articles they're
paid to summarise and add an appealing headline. It's certainly food for thought when pondering
possible Chain Of Command issues within the MSM.
When I was a regular lurker at What's Left, one notable aspect was the frequency with which
Gowans' most stunning revelations were sourced from the nether regions of articles published in
the NYT, WaPo et al.
What this all speaks of is ineptitude and malfeasance at all levels of government. Lies covering
more lies. The only things that gets done in Washington iare covering asses and those, like their
wars without end, are complete and utter failures. That the Clinton mob are sore losers and press
on with delegitimization of a clown president who, unlike the wicked witch of the West, feigned
disinterest in war and won what's left of a hollowed out presidency is theatre of the absurd par
excellence. Build the fence around the beltway and keep the psychopaths in the asylum in.
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general
election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
yeah - more stories on pussy riot.. a story like how pussy riot ate george soros, or putins breakfast
would be good..... when i read the nyt, i want a story filled with lies and deception... i'm running
away from reality and heading straight for the nyt, lol..
...
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
Posted by: doug | Sep 2, 2017 10:44:46 AM | 10
It would only be a logical fallacy if it said... "Moreover, there was no chance that these
troubles in more than one district would have effected the general election." ...but
it doesn't, so it isn't.
"... The portal purports to use "600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence efforts online" to prove how Moscow is trying to sow seeds of doubt in the Western political system, via the social network. However, the creators won't reveal the users concerned, and results seem to suggest they are mostly members of the US alt-right and alt-left. Meaning this is yet another attempt to pass off American dissent as some Kremlin "Psy-op." Which is beyond ridiculous. ..."
"... Furthermore, the names behind AFSD betray the project's real purpose: to shift blame from internal American and European factors to the convenient Russian bogeyman. Which, of course, suits its financial backers , including the State Department, NATO, and the ubiquitous weapons maker Raytheon. All of whom benefit commercially and politically from strained ties between Moscow and Washington. ..."
"... To achieve these goals they've hired the usual roll call of reliably anti-Russia blowhards. Including Estonian-American politician Ilves Toomas and rent-a-quote talking head Michael McFaul, the 'Mother Theresa of the Russia beat.' Those two are joined by neoconservative windbag William Kristol and ex-CIA chief Michael Morell. ..."
"... The dashboard itself is helmed by a chap named J.M. Berger , who was apparently an expert on ISIS and the Middle East, before discovering the Russia-bashing gravy train this summer. This week, he's taken to the pages of Politico to explain his plaything. What follows is best described as an inept and ignorant form of thrift-store McCarthyism. ..."
"... The examples become ever stranger. Berger bemoans "conspiracy theories seeking to discredit Bana al-Abed, a young girl in Syria who tweeted about the civil war." But it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest the then seven-year-old was manipulated to serve a propaganda effort. Especially after a press interview revealed how the child couldn't understand even rudimentary English, despite issuing hundreds of perfectly crafted tweets in the language. ..."
"... America's state broadcaster's RFE/RL and VOA do in Russia where they laboriously detail the travails of nationalist politicians like Alexei Navalny and their leftist counterparts, such as Sergei Udaltsov. This is what alternative media does in every market, but it seems to be only unusual when "the Russians" are involved. ..."
"... But, not content with mulching around the bottom of the barrel, he reaches into the depths when he states "while the alt-right has a very real base of support in the United States, it also enjoys deep and undisputed ties to Russia, many of which can be found offline in the real world." Amazingly, the link he uses to justify his contention is a Daily Beast article on how American white supremacist Richard Spencer was married to an ethnic Russian. The lady involved has no profile in Russia, doesn't live in the country and is a follower of a fringe philosopher called Alexander Dugin. Who is so far outside the Russian mainstream that he can't even hold down a job in Moscow. ..."
Since the German Marshall Fund of the United States unveiled its "Alliance For Securing
Democracy (AFSD)," I've resisted commenting, simply because the lobby group's "Hamilton 68
dashboard" is too preposterous to merit serious analysis.
It has rightly been ridiculed by journalists and activists who never tire of
knocking the Kremlin.
The portal purports to use "600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence efforts
online" to prove how Moscow is trying to sow seeds of doubt in the Western political system,
via the social network. However, the creators won't reveal the users concerned, and results
seem to suggest they are mostly members of the US alt-right and alt-left. Meaning this is yet
another attempt to pass off American dissent as some Kremlin "Psy-op." Which is beyond
ridiculous.
Furthermore, the names behind AFSD betray the project's real purpose: to shift blame
from internal American and European factors to the convenient Russian bogeyman. Which, of
course, suits its financial backers , including the State Department, NATO, and the
ubiquitous weapons maker Raytheon. All of whom benefit commercially and politically from
strained ties between Moscow and Washington.
To achieve these goals they've hired the usual roll call of reliably anti-Russia
blowhards. Including Estonian-American politician Ilves Toomas and rent-a-quote talking head
Michael McFaul, the 'Mother Theresa of the Russia beat.' Those two are joined by
neoconservative windbag William Kristol and ex-CIA chief Michael Morell.
Convert zeal
The dashboard itself is helmed by a chap named J.M. Berger , who was apparently an expert on ISIS and the
Middle East, before discovering the Russia-bashing gravy train this summer. This week, he's
taken to the pages of Politico to explain his plaything. What follows is best described as an
inept and ignorant form of thrift-store McCarthyism.
Berger tells us how his dashboard displays "the near-real-time output of Russian Influence
Operations on Twitter." Something he calls RIOT, for short. And he cites things like RT's
coverage of Vladimir Putin's recent pike fishing trip, a jaunt also prominently
featured in The New York Times,
The Daily Mail and The Sun, which incidentally described Putin as a "beefcake." Meaning,
either Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch are Russian agents, or this contention is just
farcical.
The lobbyist also frets over this network's widely-shared report on Oliver Stone's Facebook
post "condemning US sanctions against Russia and claiming US intelligence agencies are engaged
in a 'false flag' war against Russia." Which exposes a total lack of comprehension of how news
works. Because Stone is one of Hollywood's most famous figures and his name attached to a
perspective like this was bound to attract plenty of attention, regardless of the messenger.
It's also worth pointing out (for the really obtuse) that RT obviously doesn't control Stone's
Facebook and was merely bringing to a wider audience the American writer and director's
personal beliefs.
The examples become ever stranger. Berger bemoans "conspiracy theories seeking to discredit
Bana al-Abed, a young girl in Syria who tweeted about the civil war." But it doesn't seem
unreasonable to suggest the then seven-year-old was manipulated to serve a propaganda effort.
Especially after a press interview revealed how the child couldn't
understand even rudimentary English, despite issuing hundreds of perfectly crafted tweets in
the language.
Rock Bottom
Our hero descends further into hogwash when observing how "the most retweeted Russia Today
stories recorded by the dashboard involved scaremongering videos appearing to show refugees
swarming into Spain." But, two weeks ago, a boatful of migrants
did land on a Spanish tourist beach, near Cadiz, and quickly scattered to evade police
detection. And numerous outlets, including The
New York Times ,
The Guardian and the
BBC prominently reported the story. But apparently, it's only an issue when RT gives it
coverage.
But the garrulous quack isn't finished, asserting how RT "treads relatively carefully in
their flirtation with the far right, and they devote a significant amount of space to the far
left as well." Hardly news, given how the channel openly admits offering a platform for
alternative voices, regardless of their political compass. Incidentally, a mirror image of what
America's state broadcaster's RFE/RL and VOA do in Russia where they laboriously detail the
travails of nationalist
politicians like Alexei Navalny and their leftist counterparts, such as Sergei Udaltsov. This
is what alternative media does in every market, but it seems to be only unusual when "the
Russians" are involved.
Berger does concede one salient point: "it is important to note here again that we are not
asserting Russia is responsible for creating or shaping this content," he writes. Which
suggests he fully understands how his project is geared to smear anybody who opposes US policy
as working for Moscow's interests.
Yellow press
But, not content with mulching around the bottom of the barrel, he reaches into the depths
when he states "while the alt-right has a very real base of support in the United States, it
also enjoys deep and undisputed ties to Russia, many of which can be found offline in the real
world." Amazingly, the link he uses to justify his contention is a Daily Beast article
on how American white supremacist Richard Spencer was married to an ethnic Russian. The lady
involved has no profile in Russia, doesn't live in the country and is a follower of a fringe
philosopher called Alexander Dugin. Who is so far outside the Russian mainstream that he can't
even hold down a job in Moscow.
The fact Berger has to descend to such irrelevant tittle-tattle to score a few points tells
us all we need to know about the moral bankruptcy of the Alliance For Securing Democracy. This
is pathetic, miserable and feeble stuff and the German Marshall Fund of the United States
should be ashamed of themselves for financing this sort of muck.
Israel Shamir has some terrific but sadly likely-only-dream-world recommendations for
Donald Trump, asking him to be the man whom voters hoped he was how beautiful it would be
indeed, for Trump to end the Mid-East & South Asian wars, close Guantánamo, let
hundreds of thousands of non-violent black & other offenders / railroaded innocents out
of US prison (as Vladimir Putin did for hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners) this last
an especially brilliant suggestion by Shamir, as that one Lincolnesque act would be a total
trumping of the 'racist' slurs against Trump & his voters
But the question is Can we really hope that the USA 'Tsar' will or could act well &
honourably for his people? Was Trump just the Master New York Salesman all along?
Or is it that Trump in his heart really wanted to do some good with that high office he
was able to win Trump who trumpeted to the world the great truth that the News is Fake but a
Trump who is in fact now in part a hostage under the direst threats, not only against himself
but all his family?
Welcome to the NWO Comrade. The USA will become the USSA, please report to your nearest
FEMA Gulag for
reeducation
NOW! Don't
force
us to kick down your door at 3
am.
What do we know about RAM? [An offshoot of Antifa] Well, according to their website:
"The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is a political movement dedicated to freeing
people from bondage and building resistance in the United States."
Just like every other Antifa group, they oppose white supremacy, racism, and bigotry.
Seems reasonable, right? But read a little further into their "Political Foundation" and
you will find a few things that aren't so reasonable.
They advocate for the abolition of gender:
They advocate for the expropriation of good, lands, and tools:
And finally, just like every other Antifa group, they oppose capitalism and are open
proponents of communism.
This article is an accurate indictment of forces at work in America that don't bode well
for our future as a great power. So be it. We have never demonstrated an affinity for world
leadership.
The same tendencies that led to the schism the preceded our Civil War have risen again in
global affairs. The materialism and cupidity that so rankled the South in 1861 became the
m.o. of the victors and shape us today. This won't do. Eurasia has had enough and is turning
away from US influence as rapidly as feasible considering the tendency for rabid violence we
exhibit.
Zionists are good for one thing. They are excellent for revealing the hidden Jewish
racism.
True. They're also good at presenting themselves as something they're not, (just like
Trump, btw). They present themselves as victims, while the opposite is more accurate. They
present themselves as Semites, while Palestinians are probably much more "Semitic" than they
are. Zionists, in fact, are among the most anti-Semitic characters around. They present
themselves as Jews, and i'd like to know by what standard. Most are likely not even
religious. They present themselves as sane and "intelligent," but their actions don't show
it. We're told that they are moral; I'd like to know how. They are good for showing the world
what crazed narcissism looks like.
This is the key question: if there are instances of meddling in the USA elections
while not to investigate them all, why to select Russia who is probably a monor
player in this game.
Notable quotes:
"... Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company. ..."
"... I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review: ..."
"... The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.) ..."
"... Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite ..."
"... Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; ..."
The investigation of Russia's meddling in our politics dominates the liberal
press; and for my part, I believe everything The New York Times and MSNBC
are suspicioning about Donald Trump and the Russians. I bet that the Russians
have something on Trump personally, possibly involving money or sex; and that
the Russians meddled in our election. (Not that the meddling changed the outcome;
no, Hillary Clinton did a great job of losing it on her own.)
But as someone who focuses on Israel policy, what stands out to me is that
conduct that is Watergate-worthy when it comes to Russia is hunky-dory when
it comes to Israel. Just yesterday, for instance, Trump adviser Jared Kushner
was on the hot seat in Congress over his contacts with a Russian official last
year. But no one has a hearing about the fact that Kushner's family, out of
devotion to Israel, financed illegal Israeli settlements that have undermined
the two-state solution, thereby nullifying longtime U.S. policy. I think that's
a real problem. MSNBC doesn't.
Just in the last week there have been two other expressions of Israel's active
interests in our politics that the liberal media have failed to say boo about.
First, there's the Israel Anti-Boycott Act in the House and Senate. Israel
regards the Boycott movement (BDS) as an existential threat; and so the Israel
lobby group AIPAC produced legislation that scores of Senators and Congresspeople,
including many liberal heroes, signed on to that trashes the First Amendment
by making it a possible crime to support boycott of Israel. By the way, AIPAC
has a mission to insure that there is "no daylight" between the Israeli government
and the U.S. government. In the 1960s despite the best efforts of Senator Fulbright,
AIPAC escaped designation as an agent of a foreign government. That ought to
be a scandal, but everyone walks on by.
Then there's Israel's unhappiness with the Syrian ceasefire deal that Donald
Trump reached with Russia. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
says that the deal fails to limit Iran's presence in Syria or to prevent
weapons getting to Israel's enemy, Hezbollah; and Israel supporters in the U.S.
duly echoed Netanyahu's view.
Can the deal be restructured to Isr's satisfaction? US-Russia dynamic makes
that difficult & worrisome. But effort needs to be made.
Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his
Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest?
In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy
vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position
in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East.
But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its
hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company.
I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United
States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends
in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on
the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions
that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb
on our scale. Let's review:
Israel has put more than 600,000 settlers in the West Bank and East
Jerusalem, thereby violating the Geneva Convention and destroying the two-state
solution, which was U.S. policy. The United States has suffered enormously
for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated
in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and
its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the
settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop
settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky
has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not
the other way round.)
Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy
in the 60s, and likely also
by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through
a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this
from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception–
and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region,
and
fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite .
Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform
the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee
you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The
leading
Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing
American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring
democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; as did liberals such
as Tom Friedman, Israel's onetime promoter, who said we should go to war
against Iraq because terrorists were blowing up pizza parlors in Tel Aviv.
Whether the voice given to Israel's interest was determinative or not in
our decision to invade Iraq (I say it was), this is an influence that clearly
should have been exposed and investigated, beyond the efforts of John Mearsheimer
and Stephen Walt in their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby. But the
media shut down that conversation, in part through the vociferous efforts
of Jeffrey Goldberg, who formerly emigrated to Israel and served in its
armed forces.
Neoliberalism logically leads to the establishment on military junta or some variation of
centralized control of the state. This also makes possible to suppress or at least deflect the
wave of right wing nationalism that is swiping all Western countries and which also is the
restion to the failure of neoliberalism as a social system The USA is just a little bit ahead of
EU countries in this respect
Notable quotes:
"... Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons. [...] the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the senior staff. ..."
"... Western society is awash in propaganda, and we dare make fun of the North Koreans. ..."
"... The political directorate has basically become a group of surrogates for corporate/banking interests, while the military elite have moved into the political space along with the banksters. ..."
"... The third element of non-democratic rule in the US is the judiciary front men/women who are essentially putting the interests of the corporate elite into their interpretations of statuatory law. ..."
"... This was written before the inauguration - during the transition: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500 A good dissection of Mad Dog ..."
"... on the first part, i quote you "But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless." i fully agree with what you say here.. However, i think this has probably already happened and will happen again. ..."
"... But I'm optimistic that He's still got a few tricks up his sleeve. I've never watched The Apprentice but EVERY real CEO has a stool pigeon or two, or more, within the organisation. The CEO of Oz Branch of the last multinational corp I worked for had 4 (according to the Credit Manager(!?) who gave me a list of their names). Trump was a CEO. There's no way he would take a CEO job without making sure that he could install his own stoolies. Imo. ..."
"... I now think this is about old big money/values versus new (past 40 years) upstart money/values. But what we are seeing are the troops/puppets.....and that is internally. Internationally, the internal conflict is focused, like Bannon says, around trying to contain the China/Russia axis and maintain global private finance control versus haggling about LGBT issues. ..."
"... Interesting that 20 years ago USA Americans were taught that "The Evil Red Soviet Union" committed these horrible acts (state propaganda and domestic surveillance) and that because of these things its people were not FREE like USA Americans. ..."
"... Goldman Sachs and Military Hunta are just plain Evil ..."
"... "Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals through their organizations...... The Generals are held captive by that big $ welded, and promised to them for their "second lives" in various MIC corporations after their "retirements". ..."
"... As, let's not forget, Trump's cloudy common sense, his semi-isolationist nationalist attitude, trade protectionism (etc.) actually appealed to voters, which is unbearable to the PTB, out of bounds, leading to covert hysteria, burning up the wires. The sheeples are supposed to vote as the Media Spin ordains, not ever for their own interests or for a disgusting deplorable person like pussy-grabbing Trump. Unthinkable! that the PTB would ever be bothered by 'voter' crap. The Gore-Bush II standoff was splendiferous, a tight contest, etc. and who won might be suspense but not more, policies would be in the 'same system.' Arguments about Supreme Court decisions, yeah, only evidence a genuine 'rule of law' method.. ..."
"... The no.1. faction that can dominate Trump, also many others, is the Military. (Second are the banks, third Big Corps.) For now their position is shadowed and ambiguous, but a military Junta is perhaps not so fanciful. Thing is, a Junta solves many problems for many ppl, so in certain conditions it is embraced. ..."
"... I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my opinion and probably not in Trump's. ..."
"... The new troops may be a Pentagon face saving measure ... Or they may be a sop to the CIA, those poppy fields won't guard themselves:) ..."
According to a 1950s political theory
The Structure of Power in
American Society
is mainly build on three
elite
groups, the high military, the
corporation executives and the political directorate. (The "political directorate" can best be
described as the bureaucracy, the CIA and their proxies within Congress.)
On election day I noted that only the military had supported
The Not-Hillary
President
. The corporate and executive corners of the triangle had pushed for Hillary
Clinton and continued to do so even after Trump had won. (Only recently did the "collusion with
Russia" nonsense suddenly die down.) I wrote:
The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.
Inside the White House, meanwhile, generals manage Trump's hour-by-hour interactions and
whisper in his ear -- and those whispers, as with the decision this week to expand U.S.
military operations in Afghanistan, often become policy.
At the core of Trump's circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as
battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. The three men have carefully cultivated
personal relationships with the president and gained his trust.
...
Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the
Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy
Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the
military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. [...] the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the
senior staff.
With the firing of the renegade Flynn and various other Trump advisors, the Junta has
already removed all independent voices in the White House. It is now
attaching
more
control wires to its "salesperson" marionette:
The new system, laid out in two memos co-authored by [General] Kelly and Porter and
distributed to Cabinet members and White House staffers in recent days, is designed to ensure
that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency
reports, and even news articles that haven't been vetted.
Trump has a weakness for the military since he attended a New York military academy during
his youth. But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then
find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless.
The political directorate has basically become a group of surrogates for
corporate/banking interests, while the military elite have moved into the political space
along with the banksters.
The third element of non-democratic rule in the US is the
judiciary front men/women who are essentially putting the interests of the corporate elite
into their interpretations of statuatory law.
Meanhwhile NATO join Sweden in tremendous military exercise next month. But western outlet
propaganda journalists wont tell you about that...
Exercise: "Aurora 17"
"Is a planned military exercise that will take place in Sweden during a three-week period,
from 11 through 29 September 2017.[1] It is expected to be the largest military exercise in
20 years to take place on Swedish soil.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_17
on the first part, i quote you "But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt
one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless." i fully
agree with what you say here.. However, i think this has probably already happened and will
happen again.
point 2 - israel wants a war with iran.. they will dream up anything they can to keep the
usa military on alert for whatever hairbrained warmongering act they have in mind next..
point 3.. more bullshit to sprinkle with what is not bullshit - nato war exercises as @4
anonymous points out...
The new system, laid out in two memos co-authored by [General] Kelly and Porter and
distributed to Cabinet members and White House staffers in recent days, is designed to
ensure that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos,
agency reports, and even news articles that haven't been vetted.
Trump has a weakness for the military since he attended a New York military academy
during his youth. But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He
will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless.
...
I agree it's beginning to LOOK grim for Trump, b.
But I'm optimistic that He's still got a few tricks up his sleeve. I've never watched The
Apprentice but EVERY real CEO has a stool pigeon or two, or more, within the organisation.
The CEO of Oz Branch of the last multinational corp I worked for had 4 (according to the
Credit Manager(!?) who gave me a list of their names).
Trump was a CEO. There's no way he would take a CEO job without making sure that he could
install his own stoolies. Imo.
That said, again the private finance folk are not included in your analysis. The private
finance folk are certainly part of Trump's inner circle and none of them have been ejected.
Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals through their
organizations......
I now think this is about old big money/values versus new (past 40 years) upstart
money/values. But what we are seeing are the troops/puppets.....and that is internally.
Internationally, the internal conflict is focused, like Bannon says, around trying to contain
the China/Russia axis and maintain global private finance control versus haggling about LGBT
issues.
Western Society is awash in propaganda as it is enveloped in a Homeland Security/Domestic
Surveillance Police State - New World Order - Juggernaut.
Interesting that 20 years ago USA Americans were taught that "The Evil Red Soviet Union"
committed these horrible acts (state propaganda and domestic surveillance) and that because
of these things its people were not FREE like USA Americans.
(Homeland Security is budgeted such that airport security personnel are hired not out of
necessity, but simply to soak up the funding.
Thanks b, I would agree that a military Junta has the reins and Trump's ear, but, as
psycho @ 14 said..
"Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals
through their organizations...... The Generals are held captive by that big $ welded, and promised to them for their "second
lives" in various MIC corporations after their "retirements".
The raucous clamor painting Trump as a Russkie collaborator has now sputtered, frizzled out,
to be replaced by the equally lame 'Trump is a neo-nazi fascist racist mysoginist' as his
supporters 'mow down ppl', etc. or whatever. All these elements were present before he was
elected. (Trump is less racist than Obama..not that it matters..)
As, let's not forget, Trump's cloudy common sense, his semi-isolationist nationalist
attitude, trade protectionism (etc.) actually appealed to voters, which is unbearable to the
PTB, out of bounds, leading to covert hysteria, burning up the wires. The sheeples are
supposed to vote as the Media Spin ordains, not ever for their own interests or for a
disgusting deplorable person like pussy-grabbing Trump. Unthinkable! that the PTB would ever
be bothered by 'voter' crap. The Gore-Bush II standoff was splendiferous, a tight contest,
etc. and who won might be suspense but not more, policies would be in the 'same system.'
Arguments about Supreme Court decisions, yeah, only evidence a genuine 'rule of law'
method..
The no.1. faction that can dominate Trump, also many others, is the Military. (Second are
the banks, third Big Corps.) For now their position is shadowed and ambiguous, but a military
Junta is perhaps not so fanciful. Thing is, a Junta solves many problems for many ppl, so in
certain conditions it is embraced.
I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself
primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my
opinion and probably not in Trump's.
re Trump info access
He has people who can and do provide him with info galore outside of the office, he is not as
isolated as you suggest, and he is out of the office a lot:)
re Wars
... ... ...
re Afghanistan
The new troops may be a Pentagon face saving measure ... Or they
may be a sop to the CIA, those poppy fields won't guard themselves:)
"... Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company. ..."
"... I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review: ..."
"... The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.) ..."
"... –Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite . ..."
"... Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; ..."
The investigation of Russia's meddling in our politics dominates the liberal press; and for
my part, I believe everything The New York Times and MSNBC are suspicioning about
Donald Trump and the Russians. I bet that the Russians have something on Trump personally,
possibly involving money or sex; and that the Russians meddled in our election. (Not that the
meddling changed the outcome; no, Hillary Clinton did a great job of losing it on her own.)
But as someone who focuses on Israel policy, what stands out to me is that conduct that is
Watergate-worthy when it comes to Russia is hunky-dory when it comes to Israel. Just yesterday,
for instance, Trump adviser Jared Kushner was on the hot seat in Congress over his contacts
with a Russian official last year. But no one has a hearing about the fact that Kushner's
family, out of devotion to Israel, financed illegal Israeli settlements that have undermined
the two-state solution, thereby nullifying longtime U.S. policy. I think that's a real problem.
MSNBC doesn't.
Just in the last week there have been two other expressions of Israel's active interests in
our politics that the liberal media have failed to say boo about.
First, there's the Israel Anti-Boycott Act in the House and Senate. Israel regards the
Boycott movement (BDS) as an existential threat; and so the Israel lobby group AIPAC produced
legislation that scores of Senators and Congresspeople, including many liberal heroes, signed
on to that trashes the First Amendment by making it a possible crime to support boycott of
Israel. By the way, AIPAC has a mission to insure that there is "no daylight" between the
Israeli government and the U.S. government. In the 1960s despite the best efforts of Senator
Fulbright, AIPAC escaped designation as an agent of a foreign government. That ought to be a
scandal, but everyone walks on by.
Then there's Israel's unhappiness with the Syrian ceasefire deal that Donald Trump reached
with Russia. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
says that the deal fails to limit Iran's presence in Syria or to prevent weapons getting to
Israel's enemy, Hezbollah; and Israel supporters in the U.S. duly echoed Netanyahu's view.
Can the deal be restructured to Isr's satisfaction? US-Russia dynamic makes that difficult
& worrisome. But effort needs to be made.
Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the
real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear
that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could
be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the
Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips
in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company.
I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has
involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are
afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries
reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel
weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review:
–Israel has put more than 600,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem,
thereby violating the Geneva Convention and destroying the two-state solution, which was U.S.
policy. The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even
the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel
lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the
settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in
2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client
is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.)
–Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and
likely also
by pilfering
highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania.
There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they
all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race
around the region, and
fostered the U.S.
image as lying imperialist hypocrite .
–Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for
the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have
enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading
Israel
lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the
neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel
safer; as did liberals such as Tom Friedman, Israel's onetime promoter, who said we should go
to war against Iraq because terrorists were blowing up pizza parlors in Tel Aviv. Whether the
voice given to Israel's interest was determinative or not in our decision to invade Iraq (I say
it was), this is an influence that clearly should have been exposed and investigated, beyond
the efforts of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby.
But the media shut down that conversation, in part through the vociferous efforts of Jeffrey
Goldberg, who formerly emigrated to Israel and served in its armed forces.
Explore our updated, comprehensive Trump-Russia Timeline -- or select one of the central
players in the Trump-Russia saga to see what we know about them.
"... Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New York
Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... "There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC
attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said. ..."
"... Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian
government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have
every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack even
occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government. And all of
the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence. ..."
Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New
York Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry.
The New York Times' unrelenting anti-Russia bias would be almost comical if the possible outcome were not a nuclear conflagration
and maybe the end of life on planet Earth.
A classic example of the Times' one-sided coverage was a front-page
article on Thursday expressing the wistful hope that a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic
National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016 could somehow "blow the whistle on Russian hacking."
Though full of airy suspicions and often reading like a conspiracy theory, the article by Andrew E. Kramer and Andrew Higgins
contained one important admission (buried deep inside the "jump" on page A8 in my print edition), a startling revelation especially
for those Americans who have accepted the Russia-did-it groupthink as an established fact.
The article quoted Jeffrey Carr, the author of a book on cyber-warfare, referring to a different reality: that the Russia-gate
"certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's GRU military intelligence service or Russia's FSB security agency lack a solid evidentiary
foundation.
"There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC
attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said.
Yet, before that remarkable admission had a chance to sink into the brains of Times' readers whose thinking has been fattened
up on a steady diet of treating the "Russian hack" as flat fact, Times' editors quickly added that "United States intelligence agencies,
however, have been unequivocal in pointing a finger at Russia."
The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared
several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt.
"American intelligence agencies have determined Russian hackers were behind the electronic break-in of the Democratic national
Committee," the Times reported, followed by the assertion that the hacker's "malware apparently did" get used by Moscow and then
another reminder that "Washington is convinced [that the hacking operation] was orchestrated by Moscow."
By repeating the same point on the inside page, the Times editors seemed to be saying that any deviant views on this subject must
be slapped down promptly and decisively.
A Flimsy Assessment
But that gets us back to the problem with
the Jan. 6 "Intelligence
Community Assessment," which -- contrary to repeated Times' claims -- was not the "consensus" view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies, but rather the work of a small group of "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies: the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal
Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency. And, they operated under the watchful eye of President Obama's political appointees,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was the one who
called them "hand-picked."
Those analysts presented no real evidence to support their assessment, which they acknowledged was not a determination of fact,
but rather what amounted to their best guess based on what they perceived to be Russian motives and capabilities.
The Jan. 6 assessment admitted as much, saying its "judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something
to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation,
and precedents."
Much of the unclassified version of the report lambasted Russia's international TV network RT for such offenses as hosting a 2012
presidential debate for third-party candidates excluded from the Republican-Democratic debate, covering the Occupy Wall Street protests,
and reporting on dangers from "fracking." The assessment described those editorial decisions as assaults on American democracy.
But rather than acknowledge the thinness of the Jan. 6 report, the Times – like other mainstream news outlets – treated it as
gospel and pretended that it represented a "consensus" of all 17 intelligence agencies even though it clearly never did. (Belatedly,
the Times slipped in a correction
to that falsehood in one article although continuing to
use similar language in subsequent
stories so an unsuspecting Times reader would not be aware of how shaky the Russia-gate foundation is.)
Russian President Vladimir Putin and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have denied repeatedly that the Russian government was the
source of the two batches of Democratic emails released via WikiLeaks in 2016, a point that the Times also frequently fails to acknowledge.
(This is not to say that Putin and Assange are telling the truth, but it is a journalistic principle to include relevant denials
from parties facing accusations.)
Conspiracy Mongering
The rest of Thursday's Times article veered from the incomprehensible to the bizarre, as the Times reported that the hacker, known
only as "Profexer," is cooperating with F.B.I. agents inside Ukraine.
President Barack Obama and
President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine talk after statements to the press following their bilateral meeting at the Warsaw Marriott
Hotel in Warsaw, Poland, June 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian
government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government.
Ukraine's SBU security service also has been
implicated in possible
torture , according to United Nations investigators who were denied access to Ukrainian government detention facilities housing
ethnic Russian Ukrainians who resisted the violent coup in February 2014, which was spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other extreme nationalists
and overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
The SBU also has been the driving force behind the supposedly "Dutch-led" investigation into the July 17, 2014 shooting down of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That inquiry has ignored evidence that a rogue Ukrainian force may have been responsible –
not even addressing a Dutch/NATO
intelligence report stating that all anti-aircraft missile batteries in eastern Ukraine on that day were under the control of
the Ukrainian military – and instead
tried to pin the atrocity
on Russia , albeit with no suspects yet charged.
In Thursday's article, the Times unintentionally reveals how fuzzy the case against "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" – the two alleged
Russian government hacking operations – is.
The Times reports: "Rather than training, arming and deploying hackers to carry out a specific mission like just another military
unit, Fancy Bear and its twin Cozy Bear have operated more as centers for organization and financing; much of the hard work like
coding is outsourced to private and often crime-tainted vendors."
Further, under the dramatic subhead – "A Bear's Lair" – the Times reported that no such lair may exist: "Tracking the bear to
its lair has so far proved impossible, not least because many experts believe that no such single place exists."
Lacking Witnesses
The Times' article also noted the "absence of reliable witnesses" to resolve the mystery – so to the rescue came the "reliable"
regime in Kiev, or as the Times wrote: "emerging from Ukraine is a sharper picture of what the United States believes is a Russian
government hacking group."
The Times then cited various cases of exposed Ukrainian government emails, again blaming the Russians albeit without any real
evidence.
The Times suggested some connection between the alleged Russian hackers and a mistaken report on Russia's Channel 1 about a Ukrainian
election, which the Times claimed "inadvertently implicated the government authorities in Moscow."
The Times' "proof" in this case was that some hacker dummied a phony Internet page to look like an official Ukrainian election
graphic showing a victory by ultra-right candidate, Dmytro Yarosh, when in fact Yarosh polled less than 1 percent. The hacker supposedly
sent this "spoof" graphic to Channel 1, which used it.
But such an embarrassing error, which would have no effect on the actual election results, suggests an effort to discredit Channel
1 rather than evidence of a cooperative relationship between the mysterious hacker and the Russian station. The Times, however, made
this example a cornerstone in its case against the Russians.
Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have
every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation.
So, we can expect that whatever "evidence" Ukraine "uncovers" will be accepted as gospel truth by the Times and much of the U.S.
government – and anyone who dares ask inconvenient questions about its reliability will be deemed a "Kremlin stooge" spreading "Russian
propaganda."
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 3:39 pm
Can the United States, its mainstream media, and its intelligence services sink any deeper into the status of laughable but
also malicious clowns? Yes. They reach new lows with practically every edition of the NYT -- The only group maintaining any respectability
within these entities is the VIPS group.
Pathetic. Laughingstock of the world. But don't kick sand in these bullies' faces. They may nuke you --
You don't understand. The Times Co. Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the newspaper, wants the Golan Heights
for his pet project by any means and he is beyond himself that the bad, bad Russians stopped the slaughter of civilians in Syria
and thus stopped the dissolution of Syria.
The Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. hates, hates the idea of sovereign Syria. He wants Syria to become another Libya. Period.
And he wants to see Iran obliterated (some old grievances against the noble ancient civilization that used to provide the best
living place for Jews). And then, the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. wants to see profits, even if his profitable fake-news
business could lead to a nuclear conflict with Russain Federation. Like other super-wealthy imbeciles, the Chairman Arthur O.
Sulzberger Jr. is accustomed to a very special order when other people are always ready to clean his mess. He is not aware that
the Mess, which he is so eagerly inviting, could end up his comfortable life and make his relatives into shades on a hard surface.
Would not this planet be better without the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and likes?
JWalters , August 18, 2017 at 7:02 pm
Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They
are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem.
At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media
and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.
Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it
is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns
of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.
j. D. D. , August 19, 2017 at 3:07 pm
The "Russiagate" hoax is in big trouble. thanks in large part to the V.I.P.S. memo to President Trump, first published on this
site on July 24. No surprise then that the Times has rushed to stem the bleeding, much the way the Post did in its threatening
message to The Nation editor Van den Heuvel to retract its coverage of that explosive report. So what now? Shift the tactic to
playing the race card, in an effort to oust this President, the methods, and in fact many of the same names employed in the staged
event in Charlottesville, being all too familiar to those who followed the coup which overthrew the elected government of Ukraine.
Randal Marlin , August 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm
I think your statement "Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative
standards" gets to the crux of the matter.
Note how the evidentiary question is not significantly altered when, say, expert Dutch investigators confirm a Russian-blaming
narrative regarding MH-17 when, and to the extent that, the Dutch experts form their opinion based on evidence selected by (anti-Russian)
Ukrainian authorities.
I've used the example before of salted gold-ore samples being given to experts for analysis. Those who fell for the Bre-X scam
some 20 years ago apparently failed to appreciate the disclaimer by SNC-Lavalin, who reported a rich find, that they had not done
an independent collection of the ore samples. There was a high reported price tag for the analysis and people may have just assumed
such an independent collection had taken place.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 6:03 pm
It is absurd that an admitted hacker in Ukraine, and its militantly anti-Russian government, are considered reliable sources
in the smoke-and-mirrors game of tracing international hacking. Their only "evidence" appears to be standard hacking scams of
simulating sources to throw off investigators. It is amazing that they can't even find a hacker somewhere else to make absurd
claims in a plea bargain. Obviously NYT does not believe this ridiculous story themselves. It is the greatest fool who believes
all others to be greater fools.
The Israelis appear afraid Trump will suddenly turn on them, just as he suddenly and totally disavowed all forms of racism,
white supremacism, KKK, alt-right, etc. (And Bannon did, too.) He had needed that support to wrest the GOP nomination away from
the Wall Street gang (who merely winked and nodded at the racists, a large and crucial part of their voting base.) Perhaps the
glaring, blaring racist crimes and atrocities of Israel will be called out next? "Netanyahu is silent for 3 days over neo-Nazi violence, while his son says Black Lives Matter and Antifa are the real threat"
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/netanyahu-violence-antifa/
"Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children after Israeli generals)" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/charlottesville-empowered-children/
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm
Interesting that you say that this is an Israeli operation. I once traced malware on my PC to three sources, one with an address
in Tel Aviv Israel, and two front companies in NYC run by people with Jewish names. Complete coincidence of course.
I also traced a complex web of internet copyright piracy, which included front companies, servers, and offices in Panama, Cayman
Islands, Barbados, Montreal, UK, and various piracy and tax evasion venues. One company "TzarMedia" (in English) claimed to have
its servers in Moscow, but it turned out that this was just one more false-flag: it was in Texas, and its servers could be anywhere.
So anti-Russia false-flags are standard practice.
Because some Ukrainian oligarchs are apparently Jewish with Israeli nationality and bitter anti-Russia views on both fronts,
it seems likely that they would be hiring Ukrainian hackers by the dozen to create false-flag hacks blamed on Russia. That must
be a real growth industry in Ukraine and Israel by now, not to mention Washington.
Peter Dyer , August 18, 2017 at 3:58 pm
This is sadly reminiscent of another instance of the willingness of the New York Times to publish "evidence" of malfeasance
on the part of the enemy du jour: the series of stories in 2001-02 by Judith Miller based on Ahmad Chalabi's "evidence" of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm
At least it ended her career with the NYT. Judith Miller was being fed stories from the office of VP Cheney, who would later
cite the NYT as evidence of his accusations of WMD, completing the circle. Similarly, Kwiatkowski went public with how DIA staff
were pressured by Sec of Defense and Cheney to stovepipe cherry picked intel to support WMD. The malfeasance germinated in the
mechanical heart of one Richard Cheney and the NYT and DIA were used and abused. Not faultless, but the bulk of the derision belongs
with that administration.
Bill , August 18, 2017 at 4:12 pm
There's a bigger story behind all of this. John Brennan was abusing his position as CIA Director to wage a war against Trump.
Comey and Clapper are also "in" on it. A conspiracy? Yes. Who told them to do it? By golly, it was President Obama.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:07 pm
Yes, but don't dream of tarnishing the halo St. Barry with perfectly reasonable suppositions as to who put this mess in motion
and, I reckon, continues to ride herd on it. He is "above the fray" (my a–). He is at the center of the fray. After Hillary's
ignoble loss to Obama in 2008, she ate crow and went to work for him. They must have made some kind of deal, reached some kind
of accommodation.
Richard Tarnoff , August 18, 2017 at 4:19 pm
It is depressing, but not surprising given their corporate ownership, that the entire MSM is unwilling to ask the same hard
questions as does Consortium News. It is also depressing that the Democratic Party is happy to jump on this risky band wagon in
their desperate desire to bring down Trump.
Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 4:25 pm
I find it bizarre and frustrating that the anti-Trump forces insist on focusing on the flimsy Russia-gate distraction when
there are so many objectively awful reasons to criticize the Trump administration.
*Resurgence of Civil-Asset Forfeiture? Check.
*Supporting the private prison industry? Check.
*Empowering federal prosecutors? Check.
*Working to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal? Check.
*Dismissing anthropogenic climate change? Check.
*Going out of his way to equate Nazis with anti-Nazi protestors? Check.
*Undermining net neutrality? Check.
*Subverting scientific independence at the EPA? Check.
*Sticking up for Wall Street and bad-mouthing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Check.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:38 pm
Trump's being criticized for all-of-the-above by virtually all of the leftist media and NGO's (Counterpunch, DemocracyNow,
FAIR, RealNewsNetwork, Free Press, Public Citizen, etc) that criticized Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al for their many shortcomings
and fuck-ups.
You need to get out more.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:09 pm
But it seems like the MSM is standing in for "leftish" (sic) forces, as they combine with neocons to bring Trump down.
Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Just because the MSM doesn't like Trump doesn't mean he's a good person.
Yes, but the DNC has put all their ammo into the straw man argument of Russia-gate. I believe this is what Drogon was saying,
and I also believe it's a valid point.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:52 pm
I'll agree that it's the focus of the DNC. But he wrote "anti-Trump forces", which encompasses much more than the DNC.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:49 pm
Way to go BobS, you have an excuse for every stupid remark you make. Since Drogon said some pretty factual things that made
sense, you had to go find something to make a negative comment as a reply, and in doing so you made yourself look awfully foolish
I'll bet your working hard to sound smart and clever all the time, guess what you make yourself look ignorant instead.
If you are a contributor to this site, then I want my money back. You certainly don't bring any class, or anything worthwhile
to this site, with your crudeness. Although, you probably laugh at your own jokes, and think your funny. I've tried for the last
couple of days to somehow deal with you with the hopes that you and I could have a civil conversation, but as I can see I shouldn't
take it personally, since you seem to offend everyone no matter what what is wrong with you man.
Leslie F , August 18, 2017 at 7:07 pm
All of this is worthy of criticism, but not likely to lead to his ouster. The fools think Russia-gate will, but it is obviously
that the Repubs. in Congress are not buying it anymore than most of the population who just declines to become hysterical over
Russia when they have much more immediate problems. There is that matter of Trumps financial malfeasance which is real AND impeachable,
but the Dem establishment isn't interested because it won't deflect attention from their internal problems and many among their
number are guilty of similaar crimes, if not to the same extent as Trump. And the deep state doesn't care because it doesn't advance
their neocon agenda like Russia-gate. I think, however, that it could help mobilize popular outrage which will be necessary if
he is ever going to be impeached.
turk151 , August 18, 2017 at 7:50 pm
That is because those are all ideas that the MSM's benefactors actually support.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Yet another strained effort to distract from the actual reality of Trump's Russian connection. Here is Bill Moyers' timeline
of factual events. Tells the story better for anyone with an open mind.
Does Trump have "Russian connections?" Of course he does. He's a billionaire oligarch and, as such, he almost certainly has
corrupt connections with billionaire oligarchs from pretty much any country you can name. If the anti-Trump brigade was less hysterical,
these connections could most likely be used to remove him from office. That said, is there currently any evidence that he collaborated
with the Russian government to throw the election? No.
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 4:55 pm
Thank you for the link. Because of my "closed mind" I've concluded that Bill Moyers has lost it.
I made a couple of searches of my own and found this from Moyers:
"Raked over the coals by Republican inquisitors in Congress who could never make a case that she had acted wrongly in Libya
"
Gist of the story, poor Hillary isn't a male and everybody has been after the innocent woman on that account. Obviously nobody
would have commented if it had been a MAN with the same amount of blood on his hands. In another story he dismissed Hillary's
email maneuvers.
The man is an old Hillary-Bot and I've no use at all for that sort.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm
Actually, if you'd watched her testimony, they couldn't make that case, the reason being they focused on BENGHAZEEEE -- --
-- -- as opposed to the attack on Libya itself (which all or most of the Republicans in Congress agreed with).
Also, it's disingenuous to pretend that Clinton (and female politicians, in general) aren't held to somewhat different standards
than men.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:26 pm
Agree with you Bob. But CN is infected with Russian bots. Used to be main go to site for me, now it's just the place for Trump
and Putin apologists.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm
"Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS himself, who pretends to be a former
supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers are liars.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
""Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS himself, who pretends to be a former
supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers are liars."
Thanks for letting me know it's so easy to fuck with your somewhat empty head.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:30 pm
Yeah BobS your the only smart one here. BTW You couldn't put a patch on Anon's ass even if you tried.
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
"CN infected with Russian bots and Putin apologists." Here's your guilt by association tool again. Anyone critical of the Official
Narrative = automatically name-called to Russian bots etc etc the "commie sympathizer" BS of years ago. This kind of comment from
you automatically disqualifies you as having anything worthwhile to say here.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:30 pm
He just finished saying that they are being held to different standards.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm
His implication was that they get a pass, when in fact just the opposite is true.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:08 pm
I was never once discredited. Just censored and shouted down. Now you plant a flag and claim to have refuted. That's not winning
an argument, it's just being loud and intolerant.
LongGoneJohn , August 19, 2017 at 4:11 am
So because of the comments, you don't frequent CN anymore? I call BS, mr perpetual war apologist.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Actually the timeline stands on its own, and is factual. Try reading it and follow the chain of events. Very illustrative.
Doesn't really matter your personal animus against Moyers and Clinton.
D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 5:04 pm
The specific charge, emanating from the Clinton people, and used as diversion from DNC corruption and Clinton Foundation corruption,
is that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. This is a separate matter from Trump has had dealings with and association with
Russia since decades back. Conflating these two matters is the easy demonizing brush which you're pushing here. There is no evidence
on the specific accusation that Trump worked with Putin to fix the election. If you think there is evidence, versus guilt-by-association,
give us a heads-up on where and what it is.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:42 pm
WhoWhatWhy & David Cay Johnston are doing and have done a much better job than consortiumnews in covering Trump's likely connections
to Russian (and Italian) organized crime.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm
That begs (that is, avoids) the question.
I suspect all of our presidents have had connections with organized crime.
Trump is being charged with, basically, treason for colluding with the Russians to influence the election. Two different animals.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm
"That begs (that is, avoids) the question."
?
Kennedy, at least, at the wrong end of a gun.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm
Malcolm Nance has also chronicled the rise of Vlad and his seizure of the Russian economy from foreign vulture capitalists,
only to claim all the spoils for himself and his cronies, as well as how Trump relied on Russian funding to bail out his bankrupcies.
It's shockingly ignored here.
Malcolm Nance's book is a "best seller" because he allowed himself to become a shill for the corporate intelligence network
not unlike Ann Coulter who became a "best seller" with right wing sponsorship. Such books are printed in mass by the propagandist
and often advertised as best sellers before a copy is sold. Unlike, Coulter, Nance is articulate but he starts out by "poisoning
the well" with the premise that Putin's Russia is evil. He never really questions the hack theory. His book THE PLOT TO HACK AMERICA
is all the rage among Demo "true believers". It was given to me by a friend, no doubt to open my eyes to the evil Putin's maneuvers
but apart from the probability that he believed it himself his conclusion was based on a number of distorted facts(yes, I actually
read it).
Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm
BobS: The organized Russian Crime mafia you are referring to had branches in Tel Aviv, New York, and London too. They were
lot of people who were part of it, and must be close too Clintons too in their corrupt World in New York and elsewhere in the
West. That is how our British Friends keep their economy running. The real Russians, the peasants according to the West they are,
never really learnt the art you are describing.
May be, Trump had his hand in there in that pot somewhere too, when they were looting Russia in a big way. But they have not
dug it out yet. I fail to understand with all these intelligence agencies, they have not shown it to the public as yet.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:30 pm
If your mind is open like a sieve.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:33 pm
The sieve serves to filter isolate particles of significance from the soup of information. A dam on the other hand prevents
the flow. Most here have built dams against anything implicating Trump and Putin, and there is extensive evidence of it, from
many sources.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:56 pm
Good analogy.
There's enough criticism of Trump here (although he does have his share of apologists, especially with respect to Charlottesville
e.g.'whatabout BLM?'), but Putin, not so much. I'm guessing he gets a pass from many of the readers due to him being somewhat
alone in standing up to the US (in Georgia, Ukraine, etc) as well as consortiumnews being relatively unique in disputing the 'official'
narrative with respect to the Ukrainian coup, MH17, & Crimea (as well as Syria). While Putin has served as a valuable counterweight
to the American empire, it doesn't make him beyond reproach, and he may possibly have helped to put a white-nationalist authoritarian
into the presidency.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office. Bernie would have won, but your darling Hillary made sure that he didn't stand a chance
to win the Democratic primary, because her being a Clinton means she cheats.
Why don't you and Roy go peddle your insulting selfs to people who might buy what your selling. She loss, because she wasn't
a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to almost any of the insane Republicans who ran. You BobS are one dull gem of
a person .now go mimic me you clown.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:48 pm
"Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office."
She helped.
"Bernie would have won"
Agreed.
"She loss, because she wasn't a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to almost.."
You should get your money back for the ESL course.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 8:02 pm
BobS why can't you just talk sensibility with me?
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:18 pm
Vlad does get some credit for straight-arming the West vulture capitalists from feeding on the carcass of the USSR and the
state owned infrastructure, BUT he supplanted those efforts with his own. He's become one of the richest men in the world by the
most unrestrained crony capitalism and is a skilled authoritarian ruler. Why he is so defended around here makes me wonder who
these people are who feel so butt hurt when he is criticized.
Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:53 am
What garbage: find the evidence and your intellectual superiors will gladly review it.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:40 pm
Roy G Biv = BobS: you know as well as we that the utterly discredited Russiagate propaganda is intended solely to distract
from the DNC corruption and Repub corruption. So you pretend that discrediting it is a distraction. The crook is always full of
accusations of the same crookedness, like our Ukrainian hacker.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:23 pm
Hate to disappoint you Anon, but we are not the same person and I have no idea who BobS is. I guess you find it easier to ignore
dissenting opinion by lumping it into one persona. And your dismissal of Malcolm Nance is pretty thin IMO. The Russian hacking
of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well established and creating slogans and memes like "Russiagate" is
a cheap parlor trick.
Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:56 am
BS. You haven't a single shred of evidence of any election hacking, let alone Russian, and apparently you know it. I demand
your evidence, not propaganda.
DocHollywood , August 20, 2017 at 12:51 am
"The Russian hacking of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well established"
All that's missing is evidence.
Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm
I only pick up the New York Times once or twice a year as a novelty. It has priced itself out of the market, as have many other
newspapers, which used to be affordable by those eking out even the meanest of livings.
It would appear that the Russian hysteria is somehow connected with the anti-Trump hysteria in general, to which has been added
the charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise violence in
conjunction with a politically charged demonstration. Yet, the latter charges would seem to divide so-called progressives while
casting intellectually honest analyses like Parry's as sympathetic to white supremacists by association. This may seem to be quite
a challenging environment for journalists to operate in, as the actual situation is so at odds with the conventional wisdom being
touted from the same regions of the universe. I do hope the very fabric of truth-telling is not ripped to shreds by these counter-currents.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm
So Trump is not a Nazi sympathizer? They sure think so. Ask David Duke. He tweeted thanks to Trump for defending them.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm
This is faulty logic.
I have said it before and I will say it again:
In our two-party system, millions of voters don't actually have any party that represents their views. This includes what would
be called in the USA "extremists" on both the left and the right.
Unlike what would be the case in a parliamentary system, where if a party gets over the 5% threshold they are represented in
the legislature and may even participate in forming a government, in the USA such groups have to decide which of the two parties
is closer to their own platform. IF David Duke decides that the Repugs are closer to what he wants, that doesn't mean that Trump
is therefore a Nazi or white supremacist.
It means that Duke is some kind of Republican.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm
Trump has received adulation from the white nationalist fringe unusual for a candidate from any party.
Even more unusual, Trump has reciprocated.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm
Knowing you BobS you'll probably think that what I'm about to say, is my supporting Trump, because you are still living the
2016 presidential election. When you bring up odd alliances, how about when Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland (and John McCain)
orchestrated the coup in Ukraine that installed a full on Nazi Party, complete with swastikas?
Let's see if you can answer me in a decent tone. That doesn't mean you need to agree with me, but it does mean you are an ignorant
know it all, if you don't answer me with some common respect.
Before you came here BobS, it was nice to have conversations with the many others who whether they agreed with you or not,
at least the use of good manners did lead to our learning something worthwhile. You BobS, only bring out the worst in a person,
with your little boy agitation. It also over shadows the good points you make, when you use ridicule the way you do. In other
words BobS, I can tell your not stupid, but you sure come off that way with your words and actions when you do the silly things
you do with your rude comments.
It's very rare that I burn down bridges, for you see BobS all my life I have been a bridge builder. So, when your ready to
grow up, and become mature, then who knows, maybe you and I will become friends, if not well it's no big loss. Take care Joe
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 11:43 pm
Joe, they are both professional disruptors. The Roy G Biv character is too well informed to be merely mistaken – he's simply
not honest. I'd posit he is CIA or back-room NYT employee. Or possibly a nutcase Zionist with a good US education posting from
some stolen land in Israel.
Speaking of the New York Times, I'm done with them. I now have zero respect for the filthy propaganda site.
As I was reading through Mr. Parry's piece I decided to find out for myself if they were as bad as they seem. But how to test
this? Long story short, I hit on the idea to see what they've written about the USS Liberty on this 50th Anniversary of the attempted
sinking of the ship and attempted mass murder of all aboard.
Search terms were "USS LIberty" and "nytimes.com".
According to the Google results there were zero mentions of the USS Liberty on the NYT site within the past 12 months. Double
checking, I went to the site and entered the term into the search there. Nothing.
They lie. They distort. They conceal. Mostly for Israel. These days Israel wants Syria to get the Iraq/Libya treatment. Russia
is an obstacle. The lying, cheating, and distortions of the NYT and WP are focused on pressuring Russia enough to get them out
of Syria. The professional newcomers here are accusing us of being Putin-Hacks, and much more. They do everything they can to
disrupt discussion. I'd imagine it's because Mr. Parry's site is becoming one too many people around the world come to view. The
deliberate chaos created by these guys is another small part of the attack on Russia for Israel.
By the way, have you noticed a single thing the BobS and Roy G Biv types have written which is notable in any way whatever?
I haven't. I'm going to try very hard to be done with them as well.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 12:00 am
Thanks Zachary. Hearing you say that these two buttheads maybe professional disrupters is comforting. No, I'm actually honored
that BobS started with me (I think first) the other day. Now I feel empowered to deal with the likes of these two clown asses.
You may have already seen this article over at the Saker, about the USS Liberty, but here it is in case you haven't, or for
the others who may find interest in it as well.
I agree, Zachary and Joe. They appear to be trolls, and may use varying names for a while.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm
You just said: " .charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise
violence in conjunction with a politically charged demonstration." Your use of the word merely is very disturbing. If it was abundantly
clear from previous revelations, his performance this week should have removed all doubt about his sentiments.
Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
Yes it was wrong for me to use "merely," because the characterization of Trump as a white supremacist has nothing to do with
reality, and the fact that Trump took a balanced approach to the demonstration was another excuse for unfounded accusations. What
we have is people who want Trump out, who lost an election, who are doing everything they can to overthrow a president. Since
the Russian hacking meme has been shown to be without merit (although it is still harped upon), the white supremacist angle is
now being milked for everything it has. It's a hoax completely in parallel with the Russian hacking narrative. Reality has nothing
to do with this attempt to overthrow Trump. And the CIA is fully behind it. So stick with it. People may be making idiots of themselves,
but for them, the ends justifies the means.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Well, I guess we'll see. But I believe you will be the one eating crow when the facts are laid out. It seems people have trouble
holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require mutual exclusivity, i.e. the past misdeeds of the CIA vs the idea that they
might actually be doing public service in this Putin/Trump situation. I don't have trouble with this and embrace both. The world
and people are complex, not neatly black or white.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 5:14 pm
I remember as soon as the leak that the DNC tried to subvert the Sanders campaign came out, Hillary's campaign manager Robby
Mook stated the Russians did it, and obviously he had no conclusive proof. At the time I thought they already had it planned that
if their misdeeds were ever revealed Russia would be blamed, and it would be a good reason to go after Trump should he win the
election. It would also allow them to continue to escalate a cold war, already well underway under the Obama administration. It's
basic science that you can't come to a valid conclusion if you have already determined what that will be. I never believed their
lies from the get go. What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in pushing this lie while the American public,
and in this case the so called liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally scary
is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:37 pm
Right, they are all in on this phony Russia scare gambit. There are plenty of other causes to impeach Trump. Our President
is a crook, as well as a racist.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 7:11 pm
I don't know if Trump's a racist, maybe he is, but did you ever hear Obama, Bush, or Cheney called a racist, or if they were,
did the American people buy into it the way they have with Trump? However, what would you call people who destroy whole nations
which are predominantly Muslim, cross sovereign borders in Muslim countries killing thousands of innocents with drone warfare?
Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist? Are we not racist as a nation as well? I ask myself if these countries
were predominately Christian would the American people be so laid back about our warring exploits in these countries? What about
those papal bulls that gave explorers of the new world the right to conquer and exploit the indigenous people? Not to mention
our sense of entitlement to practically wipe out the American Indian population. If indeed he is a racist, he fits right in. Take
a look at our legal system where over 90 percent of people take a plea bargain and never get a fair trial, and most of the prison
population is black although they constitute a small minority in this country.
I have a friend who berated me for not being more outraged by Trump's racist rhetoric, but she refused to visit an elderly,
and lonely aunt who lived in a black area, while I move in and out of that area quite frequently. We're full of hypocrisy.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm
"I don't know if Trump's a racist"
Trump's a racist.
"Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist?'
Amy Goodman had on a spokesman from the Anne Frank Center this morning forcefully (and accurately, in my opinion) criticizing
Trump, Bannon, & Gorka.
The interview took a somewhat comical turn when Goodman showed her guest a clip of white supremacist Richard Spencer being interviewed
on Israeli television saying:
"As an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood and the history and
experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. I mean, you could
-- you could say that I am a white Zionist, in the sense that I care about my people. I want us to have a secure homeland that's
for us and ourselves, just like you want a secure homeland in Israel."
The comical part was watching the histrionics of the guy from the Anne Frank Center as he avoided addressing Spencer's point.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm
"Hail Trump -- " chanted by Richard Spencer after the election. Fascists love fascists.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm
I usually listen to Democracy Now, but missed this one, and it makes a good point. Easy to point a finger at someone's perceived
racism, but difficult to look at your own, which is too often justified. My point exactly. People talk about Trumps immigration
policies and deportation of immigrants, but are mindless of the fact that Obama deported 2 million immigrants. Many Americans
don't place what is going on now within an historical framework, not even a recent historical framework. I also believe there
is an attempt to undermine the people who voted for Trump, which would make a coup more possible. I don't like Trump, but more
then anything I don't like the idea of overturning the election of a president based on lies and innuendo. I really don't think
that's a good thing --
Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:49 pm
Annie, your comments are always very sincere and objective.
You wrote above: ". . .What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in pushing this lie while the American public,
and in this case the so called liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally scary
is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception. . ."
By this time, it should be clear to any one with an open mind that there is no such thing left in the country as free and fair
Media which informs public. And all these agencies you mentioned are nothing but a sewage pit of lies. And the liberal/ progressives
are like most of the population, completely brainwashed and believe whatever is fed to them by the likes of Rachael Maddow.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 10:35 pm
My brother listens to her everyday, and I can't listen to him. He's literally hysterical over the Trump presidency, as is she.
He can't hear anything I have to say, or any other point of view. To me it is a total surprise since he is well educated, and
will define himself as a liberal thinker. Bah humbug --
"The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared
several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt."
The NYT is now terrified of the genuine research and honest conclusions made by the VIPS. It's almost as if the NYT's suffering
under some sort of OCD neurosis, the VIPS has them on their heels, though the NYT will never admit it. Ergo, like Rainman, they
resort to repeating over and over and over to their brainwashed readers the Kremlin's guilt and the intel agencies' assurances.
They try ever so hard to pass themselves off as the only reasonable and sane voices in the room, during these times of upheaval
and uncertainty.
To use an admittedly stretched sports analogy: the VIPS have been doing, and are going to do, to the NYT what Floyd Mayweather
is about to do to McGregor in their upcoming prize fight. A real authentic professional is about to dominate a huckster and charlatan
who's out of his element, just there to collect a fat paycheck (not unlike the careerism of the NYTers).
Karl Sanchez , August 18, 2017 at 5:33 pm
Given the overall context of Russiagate and the "journalistic" history of the NY Times , it would be fair to assess
it and its loyal readership as spreading Washington propaganda and unwitting Washington stooges, respectively. But which gets
to claim the Greatest Propaganda Rag Prize: NY Times or Washington Post ?
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:39 pm
Too close to call.
D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 6:02 pm
From Parry: the "certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's intelligence agencies "lack a solid evidentiary foundation."
What would that evidentiary foundation be?
Would it be Donald Trump visited Russia therefore he's guilty of conspiring with Putin to fix the election, starting with hacking
the DNC.
Or Trump had real estate dealings, mafia dealings, whatever, with Russia, and leap to "I wouldn't doubt it."
Or, I hate Trump so much I'll believe anything negative about him.
Or Russia was once the Soviet Union and a bunch of commie rat bastards so of course this story is true.
Or, The New York Times, that esteemed bastion of truth and investigative journalism says it's true so it must be true.
Evidence defined: what furnishes proof.
Yet, reminded by Parry once again, here is the basis for the January 6 assessments:
Quoted from the reporting agencies themselves on January 6, their judgments–
"are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information,
which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
Based on what evidence IS, here we have NO evidence. What we do have is speculation.
Clapper weighed in on January 6 with a "moderate" assessment. How does a moderate differ from a high assessment–was some of
the logic–since the statement indicates no proof based on fact exists–somehow dubious or tendentious?
He was moderately convinced that it just might be so, maybe, possibly. Is that what this means?
Dempsey weighed in at "high" with the above statement, and perhaps somebody knows what this "high" meant, based on what?
Comey weighed in at "high" although his agency, the FBI, did not examine the DNC computers, and relied entirely on Crowdstrike,
shown repeatedly as a biased anti-Russian source in the employ of Hillary Clinton.
This is the authority creating the flimsy evidentiary foundation of the NY Times et al MSM to which we citizens are now either
a) skeptical or b) entirely convinced.
"Evidentiary void"–right on, Robert Parry --
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Sorry, meant to say Brennan, not "Dempsey" re CIA assessment.
The Saker is always interesting, and even though you find some good people over there (Michael Hudson & Mike Whitney, among
others), the race stuff at Unz always makes me feel like I have to wash off.
John , August 18, 2017 at 6:58 pm
America is walking into a well planned nightmare. Spoon fed to you by the corporate media soon the spark of hate will become
an uncontrollable wildfire
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:00 pm
It did not rely entirely on Crowdstrike. They are just the ones who referred it to FBI. If you don't think the USA has powerful
IT divisions who can forensically determine source and method, then your fear of deep state are immediately invalidated, a contradiction.
If you believe in the awesome power of the intelligence community, then you cannot use the argument that they don't know anymore
than what the got from Crowdstrike. I understand the mistrust of the IC, but you must admit that they just might me trying to
protect us in this case from enemies foreign and domestic.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 7:57 pm
No, no one can "forensically determine source and method" except in lucky cases or when tracing naive hacks. NSA got its trove
of hack methods including false-flagging methods on the black market from a Ukraine hacker. So no one will buy garbage accusations
of Russia from a Ukrainian hacker.
If the US IC has insider sources, they must be prepared to have them bail out and give testimony, after some reasonable period,
where grave accusations must be either discredited or cause serious policy changes.
No hiding behind "trust us" after months: only fools will believe "confidence."
The same goes for MH-17, WMD, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and many others.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm
What you are saying is true and reasonable. But consider that this is an ongoing counter espionage investigation that has been
in progress for over one year, and these take years to conclude. You may not be able to trust them without seeing the info and
intel, but you cannot simply conclude that the evidence simply doesn't exist just because it's not visible to you. There are reasons
to hold cards close to the vest while leveraging suspects into witnesses.
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:38 am
Fine, let them investigate, but they must not announce extremely serious conclusions to the public, with immediate political
implications, especially conclusions that serve immediate political ends in the US, and refuse to provide evidence to the public
even after a month or so. That is either careless methodology or fraud. The history of such "revelations" on "high confidence"
has been a history of fraud by political appointees to the intel agencies.
I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are critical secrets might be revealed with
the evidence, although it appears that the secrets could generally be kept. Such technology requires having a safe disclosure
method, such as disguising/relocating informants and devices. Most likely such technology would provide clues to direct other
safely-revealable technology. If it does not, it does not serve democracy well, and probably is fundamentally a tool of tyranny,
a product of excessive spying, and must be discounted by the public.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:06 pm
By the way, the "Evidentiary Void" might actually look pretty filled up in private eyes of the office of special counsel. I
wouldn't expect to see the all of the evidence of a case in progress, as persons being investigated are best left unknowing and
useful to flip for a leniency deal. Again, the timeline will be very informative if you take the time to read it. It's merely
the chronological presentation of factual events.
That link is so full of invasive scripts that my script blocking software cannot be persuaded to show it.
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 8:37 pm
I use YesScript for Firefox on a case-by-case basis. If a site has annoying animations, it gets the treatment.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:40 pm
Just goole billmoyers.com and look for timeline. It's so easy.
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:40 am
The time-line is irrelevant to the specific claim that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election. Point to anything in
this time-line that offers evidence.
Reminder 1: evidence is what offers proof on the specific charge.
Reminder 2: the IC January 6 statement "not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."
This very interesting statement suggests that a political motive was operative in these assessments, in which "what we want
to believe" becomes "what we believe," or to quote Seymour Hersh recently, 2 + 2 = 45.
Your absence of doubt, particularly given the history of lying from our official government reps over many years now, as well
as your swerving aside to an irrelevant "time-line," puts you in the camp of the propagandists.
I believe it is a disgusting and dangerous remark for a person in an elected position to make.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm
That's why I'm outraged.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:37 pm
See BobS no one knows how to take your snarky remarks. Plus, I don't believe you when you say you were outraged, because your
squirrelly mind doesn't know how to be sincere. Oh will you pay for my ESL courses? Jagoff.
Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Mr. Pary, do you manage to send your articles to selected editors and journalists of the NYT, The Guardian, and their MSM mates?
To selected politicians, including executive bureaucrats & MIC peple? It seems to me that some of them must read more than twits
twittering? I think it's very vital that you do so or that someone does it on your behalf (and ours.)
Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Oops, Parry.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:42 pm
Parry is well known on Capitol Hill and among the MSM. Long standing feud, but no doubt respected.
Sam , August 18, 2017 at 7:37 pm
"a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016"
Mr Parry, the malware and its developer had nothing whatsoever to do with the DNC. The New York Times erroneously made this
claim and was forced to issue a correction. It has NEVER been claimed that this malware was deployed against the DNC. I think
your piece would be strengthened if you mentioned that The New York Times made a big blunder about this.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 8:11 pm
Hi Sam, I regularly post here as Sam F and would appreciate your using an initlal to avoid confusion, if you will.
Taras77 , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm
This might be a tad OT but both links follow the reporting on Russia-gate hysteria:
This link is a review of a book on the Browder deception (title of review article is a tad more dire than the title of the
book):
This link is to a very long article by saker on the neo con campaign to take down America and probably the world-very long
but worth a read, particularly with fast moving developments in the trump white house; comments in general are also worthy of
perusing:
We should be careful, as not to dwell strictly on memorial statues. I will admit though, that the conversation should be had,
but not without looking at the type of individuals who flock towards the racist trend. So far, of what I have been able to read
regarding these young white guys, who have found comfort in racism, I find these misguided youth to be angry over the rise of
minority groups. Reading their words, these angered white supremacist wrote, they complain that we spend to much time worried
about bathrooms over them having a decent job. I say, why can't we do both. Someone needs to tell these racist, that it's not
the various minority's who are getting in the way of their success in America, as much as it is themselves for not being able
to overcome the many obstacles life has put in their way. They need to realize, that their future welfare doesn't rely on a minority
losing any of their rights, in order for these racist to survive comfortably. What they need to learn, is they are their own best
hope .attitude is altitude.
I also hope, that what happened in Charlottesville doesn't bring down the hammer on all public protest.
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 3:20 am
Joe – but there are too many "unskilled" workers coming into the country and it IS making a difference. Long time ago, when
there was an abundance of factories churning out all sorts of products, there was a need for unskilled labor. People flooded into
the country to fill these much-needed positions. You didn't need any special training; you didn't need to understand English.
With jobs having been offshored to Asia and with increasing automation, there is not a need for the same amount of "unskilled"
labor as before, and yet they continue to pour into the country. What are the people who are on the left-hand side of the bell
curve supposed to do? Innovate? Compete with the newcomers and have wages decline even more?
It's not the immigrants these kids dislike. It's the sheer numbers of them. Does that make any sense to you, that it's about
the "numbers"? I agree that obstacles in life often make you wiser and stronger, but there comes a point in time when you start
banging your head against the wall. What is the point of putting so many unnecessary obstacles in front of people? So some corporation
can maintain a cheap labor force?
Sometimes my posts come across as sounding blunt. I don't mean them to. It's just that when things are reduced to words, you
miss the shrugs of the shoulders, the eye movement, the sincerity in a person's voice.
Cheers, Joe.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:22 am
You never come off sounding bad, or blunt, with me.
For all the reasons you mentioned, is for all the reasons we as a society should require us to pull together. You see, I don't
believe that all these problems should be remedied with racism taking over our young white mens political ideology. That's all
I'm saying. If only our country would elect leaders, instead of billionaire realtors with tv celebrity status. If only this country's
political parties were to not break the law running their gentrified Wall St hack candidate, who's only aim is to feather her
historical bio. You see backwardsevolution, we need leaders, not celebrities seeking office for their own vain gratification.
Yes, for all the hard choices, and for all the tough decisions, should be the reason for our leaders to reach out or down,
which ever you prefer, and should be what pulls us together. It breaks my heart, that here we are in 2017, the most successful
nation God ever put on earth, and our white young men are turning into racist. Now, what could be wrong with that? I'll tell you
what's wrong with that. Our leaders have quit leading, and replaced this leadership we the people should be receiving, and replaced
this ever distant leadership with ignorance of doing their job to represent the voters.
Thanks for your response. Joe
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:49 am
Joe – " our white young men are turning into racists." I don't think they are, Joe. I think they get angry that they are not
being allowed to speak, as if what they have to say doesn't really matter. I think that what we hear is carefully filtered, especially
in the MSM, so as to make it look like they're racist, but I don't think this is the case at all. No time now, Joe. Thanks.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 11:59 pm
Okay, I will admit that our media portrays many of our events in the worst possible way. You more than likely may have a point
that these young white men are not racist, that for many of them this white supremacist movement is just a vehicle to carry out
their concerns.
What is wrong with our country's leadership, is how they speak to the problems, such as unemployment, with the sharpest rhetoric
they can find to say how they are going to create many, many new and exciting jobs, but once in office they don't do a darn thing,
as they go on to ignore the many promises they had made on the campaign trail. What these politicians seem completely oblivious
too, is the voters who voted for them ,have memories, and they don't forget.
Opportunity only comes to those who seek it. Well that's not completely true, but in most cases it does prove that to those
who try hard, much may be achieved. So if our politicians were to really want to change our sad employment status in this country,
then why don't they do it? Would you invite 100 people over for a barbecue, and only have enough beverage and food for 25 of your
guess. So, why can't the American politicians manage to accommodate a sagging work force, who's jobs they send off shore, with
enough new jobs to fill the quota of the unemployed? Because they weren't told too, by their corporate special interest, or maybe
they just didn't care enough to do something about it.
So, the young white, black, red, and yellow, person loses out. They lose out all because they were neglected by the very people
who said they would help them. I don't know about you, but one of life's biggest disappointments, is when your savior turns their
back on you.
I hope backwardsevolution I'm not sounding like I'm just spinning wheels, and I hope you at least get a peek of what is going
on inside my head, with these important issues.
Joe
Realist , August 19, 2017 at 5:49 am
"Illegitimi non carborundum." (Don't let the bastards grind you down.)
Keep fighting for your principles AND civil discourse on this board, Joe. I offer the same words to backwardsevolution with
whom you were conversing. You have both been stellar examples of respectful debaters.
I don't for a minute think, like some who keep obnoxiously pushing the accusation that most Americans, especially most Southern
Americans, are racist, that racism underlies most of the dysfunction in governance of modern America, and that President Trump
is the king of all racists, winning office only with the support of racists (and Russian saboteurs) to carry on a racist agenda
thus depriving us of a new golden age under Saint Hillary the Great. The whole racist conflict in Charlottesville seemed suspiciously
contrived to me to distract from other problem areas and to facilitate the ongoing coup against Trump (like him or hate him).
I am NOT going to recapitulate all that yet again.
Certainly there were bone fide haters, some predisposed to violence, recruited into both factions by professional agitators.
They couldn't have succeeded in provoking the violence if there were not. But, most working Americans are basically running scared,
fearing they might lose their jobs, their houses, their medical coverage, quality education for their kids, and a viable future.
Most whites, whether right or left, from the North or South, do not hate blacks, Latinos, Muslims or immigrants in general. They
can see how disadvantaged those people often are and fear ending up in the same predicament. Most never say much about the situation,
certainly not in strident public statements. Even the participants at political rallies are just a self-selected minority. Most
who vote do so quietly, without comment. (My parents would never tell us who they voted for -- Keeps the peace.) More than half
the country does not even vote. They choose to shy away from the political battlefield and certainly do not want to confront agitators
in the street.
Call them alienated or disconnected from society, and condemn them if it suits your world view. We contributors to this site
do put a lot of blame on those we decide are willfully ignorant. But I suspect that most of the self-disenfranchised simply don't
have enough time to devote to learning the issues, choosing up sides and becoming activists, or even voters. I doubt that many
of them think that tearing down a bunch of old monuments they were totally oblivious to will change their lives in any way and
they certainly don't want to devote the time or energy to fighting about them.
If either the left or the right want to improve the lot of regular Americans, they will take some kind of action to bring back
jobs to this country, not just high-skill jobs that require massive re-education, but jobs for the middle and the working classes
alike. I thought that's what Dems always wanted to do, and what Trump said he would do. Why is everything still in grid-lock in
Washington while both parties are trying to dump the man who opposed the TPP and said he would pressure corporations to keep jobs
in and even bring back jobs to America–not that I think the latter is likely, but why has even lip-service to the idea stopped?
If the Dems ostentatiously claimed THAT issue was their major bone of contention with Trump, they'd have a lot more followers
than the few idiots who buy the Russia-Gate bullshit.
When Newt Gingrich swept the GOP to power in the congress during Bill Clinton's first term, he had devised a lengthy detailed
plan of action called the "Contract for America." I was not an advocate of those policies, but they certainly resonated better
with the public than today's "elect the Democrats to power and the Russians will never steal another election, in fact, we'll
kick their asses from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea." "Plus we'll tear down all the confederate monuments which should bring
peace and harmony to the streets." If the real game changers can ever be implemented (which seems near to hopeless to me), racism
will not be a major issue in this country, not if most of us are physically and economically secure and optimistic about our futures.
(I've had two black families and a Latino family living in houses right next to mine in South Florida, and I had a mixed race
family as neighbors in my previous place of residence. Do I care? No. Do they care? No. Anyone else in the neighborhood ever make
a comment about anyone's race? No. Does it affect my property value? No, but the real estate bubble caused by the banks sure did.)
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 7:03 am
Yes, good to point out that economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among US workers.
This is a great concern to those who advocate international development aid, who must answer objections on economic effects.
The answer on globalization may involve treaties and laws restricting trade to nations that provide a standard of living that
compares well with the lower middle class of the US, and to suppliers who provide well for their employees. While that would be
cheaper elsewhere, so does not remove competition with US labor, it does require that the cost in jobs to the US worker is matched
by benefits in development elsewhere. So our assistance to US workers is reduced by development assistance.
It also would prevent the US heartlessly exploiting cheap labor pools of oppressed workers, without you or I being able to
help them by purchasing choices, or to escape guilt in their exploitation. It would be good to know that one could make purchasing
decisions without grinding others into poverty and degradation to save a few pennies.
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 7:53 am
" economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among US workers."
Partly, though certainly not solely, with respect to immigration.
Racism?
Nope.
Makes a nice scapegoat, though, for racists and their apologists.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 10:07 am
Your comment Sam took my mind back to my younger days when this town had an abundance of steel mills. If you were a young apprentice
sometimes on your first day on the job, no one seemed to want to teach you the ropes, because each mill worker felt threatened
that you were to be trained to replace them. In time, if you didn't screw up, you would be accepted and inducted into the group.
We love cliques and groups, don't we? I thought of this, because what you wrote reminded me of how outsiders are viewed by the
existing work force. This comparison on a international level is what we are experiencing. Our leadership is to blame for this
new dividing dilemma. Promises to replace your old job with a brand new better job, was the big lie. Corporate profits override
human necessity, and with that we all lose. I don't think that all these retail outlets closing their doors, is merely due to
Amazons convenient purchasing, but much of this loss of retail revenue, is due to the beatdown society just cannot afford it.
Good comment as always Sam. Joe
Realist , August 19, 2017 at 6:25 pm
You are very much on point, Joe, about worker pitted against worker. Who benefits from such a divide and conquer tactic? The
robber baron capitalists are who. And, I use that term because the phenomenon is nothing new. It, like the bruhaha about race
goes back to before the Civil War. Ever watch the movie "The Gangs of New York?" Both these conflicts, involving race (and ethnicity)
and socioeconomic class, are laid out powerfully right there. And, just as in the movie, after our generations exit the stage
following all the sturm und drang, all the hate and all the angst churned up because we are made pawns of greater forces, no one
will even remember we personally ever existed.
Trump Tower, the Clinton Foundation, and Obama's Library in Jackson Park (yeah, named after the racist Andrew, not Stonewall)
will still persist though, just like the confederate statues do today. But would we really want our descendants to forget this
era and the players who dominated it? We build monuments in DC to the holocaust in Europe which didn't even happen here, not to
honor or glorify it but so we collectively don't forget. Maybe the purpose of some monuments actually evolves over time to serve
as a lesson rather than hero worship, and when Americans a hundred years from now look upon a bronze cast of Robert E. Lee, U.S.
Grant or Douglas MacArthur their take will be, "war, how could our forebears possibly have embraced something so heinous, so destructive,
so insane?"
Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 12:20 am
I always take away something of high value from what you write Realist. I agree with what you wrote here. I also think that
our government should build right next to the Holocast museum, a fitting tribute to the suffering of the 600 indigenous nations
who the U.S. had destroyed in its quest for manifest destiny. I'm serious, as a Sunday school teacher is on a Sunday teaching
the word of God. If our nation's soiled pass, is to remain hidden by the curtain of everything that's just and right, then America's
beloved citizens will never know to what is true. How can our nation become truly great, if it keeps on continuing to lie to itself.
Making stuff up, will only last so long, until the truth will finally overcome every lie you ever told yourself.
The change in attitude towards venerating our country's historical pass, is a sign of how our American culture is changing.
What got praise 100 years ago, may not be praise worthy by today's existing society. There isn't much to cry about, but instead
we should understand that these changes will come, just as night follows day. I guess I'm a revisionist at heart, but I do believe
that assumptions and conclusions, are a ever changing thing. So what we are witnessing, and experiencing, is just our own human
evolution. Plus, I might add, as you know Realist, history is always being updated, and revised, and with it many truths that
weren't known then become known.
It's always a pleasure to correspond with a reasonable, and sensible, comment poster as you. Joe
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:32 am
Every word you wrote Realist, is excellent. I felt the same way about Bill Clinton, but your right, at least the masses at
his time in office thought the economy was what it was all about. I will save going into the reality of Clinton's time in office,
but your point is well made.
Whether it be the Democrates, or a truly changed Republican party, one of these political parties will need to accommodate
the voter, if anything is to get better.
Rather than me go on, I'm just going to read once again what you wrote Realist, because I could not write what you had wrote
any better. Your words are excellent to what we are talking about.
I always enjoy reading your comments Realist, never leave us. Joe
Gregory Herr , August 19, 2017 at 3:06 pm
I have to chime in Joe. I read it twice for good measure. Thanks to Realist and the many here who share such understandings.
backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:11 am
Realist – thank you for your kind words. I always appreciate your well-thought-out and intelligent posts. They provide class
and depth to the conversation. I, on the other hand, do not really belong on this site.
Sam F , August 20, 2017 at 9:58 am
Your posts have also been very useful and interesting, b-e.
backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:15 am
Yours too, Sam. Always enjoy your comments --
Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 9:02 pm
Hey backwardsevolution your the life of this party, you never seem like you don't belong. I personally look forward to reading
your comments. So brighten up, you are needed here, and that's no lie. Joe
backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:25 am
Joe – you're such a kind man. Thank you. I enjoy reading your posts too; they're always very considerate. What I mean by "I
do not really belong on this site" is that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently. I'll
hang around a while yet, though. Thanks, Joe.
Joe Tedesky , August 21, 2017 at 4:09 pm
"that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently"
With your quote that is all the more reason this sites comment board needs you backwardsevolution.
backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:15 am
Realist – excellent post. Thank you.
exiled off mainstreet , August 19, 2017 at 12:02 am
At Nuremberg, in 1946, Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi propaganda rag Der Stuermer, was executed based on the crime of
propagandizing for war. This article provides further evidence that the New York Times Russia posturing is a tissue of propaganda
lies. Since the logical goal of the propaganda is war, and the crap they are publishing has similar validity to that which was
published for decades in the Nazi Stuermer rag, then if the legal doctrines put forward in the Nuremberg trial could be applied
to US war propagandists, their status as war criminals would be apparent.
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:42 am
exiled – yeah, I don't see a difference between then and now. Lies are everywhere, and not just little ones, but huge mothers
used to sway public opinion. These guys really need to be in jail.
Look at what the Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, said re Charlottesville. His remarks were quickly refuted by the Virginia
State Police, but if you happened to hear what McAuliffe said, yet missed the police's remarks, you'd be none the wiser and you
probably would have believed McAuliffe.
"In an interview Monday on the Pod Save the People podcast, hosted by Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson, McAuliffe
claimed the white nationalists who streamed into Charlottesville that weekend hid weapons throughout the town.
"They had battering rams and we had picked up different weapons that they had stashed around the city," McAuliffe told Mckesson.
McAuliffe claimed in an interview with The New York Times that law enforcement arrived to find a line of militia members who
"had better equipment than our State Police had." In longer comments that were later edited out of the Times' story, McAuliffe
said that up to 80 percent of the rally attendees were carrying semi-automatic weapons. "You saw the militia walking down the
street, you would have thought they were an army," he said."
All total bullshit -- Talk about inciting people -- Why is this guy still walking around?
To be more successful, the right wing protestors should have paraded under a facade of free speech, human rights and democracy,
all the while promoting Nazi policies. This is something US intelligence agencies, MSM, and Congress do every day. US politicians
should wear little swastika lapel pins on their suits to avoid confusion.
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 1:24 am
Obviously, the correct answer is
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad.
Then there's answers I've read in these comment sections, for instance
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad BUT .whatabout BLM?
&
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad
neo-Nazis in the U S = trap for Trump
as well as this classic:
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = DEEP STATE -- -- --
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 1:59 am
Here is a post by Karl Denninger, a fellow who used to own his own Internet company in Chicago and is very knowledgeable about
these things. After reading The Nation article by Patrick Lawrence, he said:
"I wouldn't go so far as to claim impossible, but I would say "highly unlikely." The second part of the statement, however,
is utterly true -- it is completely consistent with either a SD card or USB flash drive inserted into a computer.
When it comes to Internet transfer of data, remember one thing: You're only as fast as the slowest link in the middle.
There are plenty of places on the Internet with gigabit (that's ~100MegaBYTE per second) speeds. But you would need such pipes
end to end, and in addition, they'd have to be relatively empty at the time you exfiltrated the data.
What's worse is that there is a real bandwidth product delay problem that most "pedestrian" operating systems do not handle
well at all.
In other words as latency and number of hops go up, irrespective of bandwidth, there's an issue with the maximum realistically
obtainable speed, irrespective of whether there's sufficient available pipe space to take the data. This is a problem that can
be tuned for if you know how and your system has the resources to handle it on some operating systems -- specifically, server-class
operating systems like FreeBSD. But the "common" Windows machine pretty-much cannot be adjusted in this way and it requires expert
knowledge to do so. [ ]
But it sure does cast a long shade on the claims of "Russians -- " in this alleged "hack." The simple fact of the matter is
that the evidence points to inside exfiltration of the data directly from the physical machines in question, which is no "hack"
at all: It's an inside job, performed by someone who had trusted, administrative access, and then doctored the documents later
to make it look like Russians.
And, I might add, poorly doctored at that.
PS: Left unsaid in the linked article, but it shouldn't have been, is that if there was an SD card or external USB device plugged
into the machine there is an event log from said machine documenting the exact time that said device was attached and detached.
Find that log (or the timestamp on it being erased, which is equally good in a situation like this), match it against the metadata
times, and then start looking for security camera footage and/or access card logs for where that machine is and you know who did
it with near-certainty, proved by the forensic evidence.
Now perhaps you can explain why the FBI didn't raid the DNC's offices with a warrant, take custody of said logs and go through
them to perform this investigation -- which would have pointed straight at the party or parties responsible .."
Could the quote below apply to today?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street
building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History
has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." – George Orwell, 1984
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 8:44 am
"Could the quote below apply to today?"
If one is a drama queen, apparently yes.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:51 am
Stephen it doesn't take a drama queen to recognize the true sorry state our society has evolved into. Orwell's 1984 is disturbingly
coming to life more than ever. I read 1984 back when I was a sophomore in high school, but recently a lawyer friend of mine read
that book, and he said that all he kept thinking about was me. He said, that while he read the book, the many conversations which
him and I had had made him think of my warnings to where our civilization is going. No we are here, the date on your calendar
may read 2017, but make no mistake about it we are living in 1984.
I dread that these violent protest, will deny our civil rights to form protests, and that would be a great loss. Although,
these buggers in D.C. are convinced they must seize every crisis, and milk it for all they can. Each terrible disaster brings
with it new restrictions. It maybe found when boarding a plane, or opening an investment account, as each tragic event brought
us to these new restrictions we must live with. We are being played, but that piece of information, is covered over with conspiracy
nut paper, and there go I.
Keep the faith Stephen, and ignore the trolling critics, who no doubt are paid to annoy us with our own hard earned taxpayer
money .now that's Big Brother stuff, if ever there was any Big Brother stuff to disturb our inquiring minds. Joe
Reading the link you provided, all I could picture, was Senator John McCain doing a photo op session with his new found friends
the terrorist. Also, I believe that if you pay your taxes you have every right to complain. That your ability to lodge a complain
against your government shouldn't depend solely on your voting, because you still pay your taxes, and that paying your taxes,
is your ticket to the complaint window.
What this country's politicians really need is a 'low voter turnout', so low as to delegitimize the results of any election,
which would result in the world not honoring your country's election results.
As if on cue, to illustrate my point.
Get out the smelling salts.
Tannenhouser , August 22, 2017 at 10:32 pm
Balloons full of piss. I'd say that illustrates anything remotely resembling a point you make believe you have made bobs.
Keep up the good work Joe. Thanks for all you and other's do here.
Michael Kenny , August 19, 2017 at 10:30 am
Mr Parry is simply repeating what he has said before in many articles. He even harks back to the Malaysian airliner -- Whatever
other evidence there may be (MacronLeaks, the criminal investigation into which is still ongoing), Trump Junior's admissions prove
Russian interference in the US election. Russians claiming to represent their government met with Junior and offered him DNC "dirt".
DNC dirt subsequently appeared on the internet via Wikileaks. That those two events are wholly unrelated coincidences is more
than I am prepared to believe. At that point, it matters not one whit how the Russians obtained the information or from whom.
The Russians promised, the Russians delivered. Did Charlottesville really do this much damage? Putin's American supporters seem
to be in panic -- Or is it Bannon?
Desert Dave , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
"Trump Junior's admissions prove Russian interference"? Unless I am not keeping up, all that happened is that a PR flak (not
in Russian government) used the promise of compromat to arrange a meeting with Junior, where they talked about something else.
That's weak, my friend. And while it seems true that Trump's supporters are in a panic, Trump is not Putin.
And in case you want to put me in the box with Trump supporters, know that I am actually a LGBTQ-celebrating, anti-war, dirt-worshipping
tree-hugger.
Gregor , August 19, 2017 at 12:47 pm
A sincere congratulations to some of us who have learned to ignore the snarky but non- contributive remarks
of Bob S. . Joe and Stephen and others, it seems you have found a way to communicate with each other and the rest of us
without responding to Bob S. That's good.
Bob In Portland , August 19, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Let me toot my own horn again. I figured all this out last spring. But the way the false information was fed to the public,
large portions were revealed after the election, indicates that the disinformation wasn't originally to prevent Trump's election,
but rather intended as use for President Hillary Clinton's casus belli to take the war to Russia. Everyone presumed she would
win. You can read original piece here:
https://caucus99percent.com/content/okeydoke-americans-were-supposed-get
But, as I suggested in April, this okeydoke was directed by the intelligence wing of the Deep State, probably the CIA, for
Hillary's warhorse to ride into battle. It not only was supported by the CIA, it was created by it. And while most Americans never
consider that the powers who are the likeliest suspects for the political assassinations of the sixties would insinuate themselves
into the political system and support and promote their own, I suggest that another article, another one from the New York Times,
which tries to explain Hillary suspiciously bouncing from the right to the left during the troubled times of 1968. What the article
doesn't provide is that after volunteering for Gene McCarthy in early 1968 she attended the Republican convention. After that
she worked as an intern in Congress that summer and wrote a speech for then-Republican congressman Robert "Bom" Laird about financing
the war in Vietnam. Six months after that speech Laird was Nixon's Secretary of Defense, sending wave after wave of B-52s over
Vietnam. Then Hillary capped her summer by going to the civil war that was the Chicago Democratic convention.
Rather than looking like a confused college student, not sure whether to be a pro-war Republican or an anti-war Democrat, Hillary
Rodham looks more like one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of government spies that infiltrated all progressive groups back
then in operations like the FBI's COINTELPRO. What did she do after that? She "observed" a Black Panther trial in New Haven. Then
a year or so later she spent a summer interning for the law office in Oakland that represented Black Panthers in the Bay Area.
In short, she appeared to have an intelligence background before she allegedly met Bill on the Yale campus, which holds out
the possibility that their marriage was actually a marriage made in Langley. And that explains why Deep State interests wanted
and expected her to be leading the charge in 2017.
As usual I take away a lot from your posting comments.
Michael , August 19, 2017 at 4:54 pm
Roy G Biv wrote: "It seems people have trouble holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require mutual exclusivity "
Sam F wrote: "I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are critical secrets might be
revealed with the evidence "
So what is being said is that the benefit to the USA of disclosing methods and sources has not yet reached the level at which
the FBI or the IC will comply on their own to make public any evidence AND it also has not negatively affected the country enough
to force our leaders with the levers of power in their hands to make them comply.
That's what I hear and it sounds like typical political posturing. So we will get more dysfunction in govt and more people
dying here and abroad. Mean while we wait for the magic event that will put us over the line. Or not
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Yes, it looks like political manipulation. The IC could have revealed sufficient information after a month or so at only moderate
loss of intelligence asset value, both on the alleged hacking and flight MH-17. If they were unprepared to reveal evidence after
this time, then they should not have publicized conclusions. By now they should accept the loss and reveal it, otherwise citizens
may fairly presume that political appointees in intel are deceiving them for political purposes.
Typical sources that could be revealed by now:
1. A well-placed source in a foreign government agency: Try to claim another plausible source, email intercept, or recently dismissed
employee or defector already protected; if that is impossible and the info is of great political importance in the US, the real
source must defect to the US for safety. We must take the intel loss to preserve the integrity of public information.
2. A satellite or new technology: If the images or info seem to identify the source or location or capability, then modify them
enough to make it look like another technology or location. Admitting alteration is better than providing nothing.
3. A snoop connection in a valuable location: move it, install another similar device, claim that the info comes from a distinct
source or location, etc.
If the problem is "developing" witness credibility or forthrightness, which some may hope will improve, then the source is
not yet credible and potential conclusions should not be stated with "high confidence" by anyone who cares for truth in policy
making.
Billy , August 19, 2017 at 7:30 pm
The "Russia hacked the DNC so if you pay attention to the content of the emails leaked, you're a Putin loving unAmerican dog
-- " lie used by the DNC to distract from their cheating Bernie. Really took off, practically every pretend news source on the
internet repeated the evidence free accusation, as if it were a proven fact. As did all the MSM propagandist posing as news anchors.
The sheer number of people pushing the lie was mind boggling. Now all of the sudden not a peep about it. I have to question the
timing of the statue removal shit stirring. It seems like a convienent distraction. Why now? All of a sudden these statues must
go -- -- I still haven't figured out what the distraction is distracting from. But the Nation and other web sites were starting
to publish truth about "Russia gate"
Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:13 pm
Good comment Billy. The timing of these events is always interesting. Like when the MSM released info on trumps son meeting
with a Russian, just after trump met face to face with Putin in Europe. Presumably the MSM had this story for months, and ran
it to "punish" trump for the Putin meeting.
Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:04 pm
Again, its probably best to ignore BobS. He is probably a paid professional disruptor ..your tax dollars at work huh? The fact
he is bothering to muddy these waters is both flattering to CN and evidence of the validity of CN's stance on many important issues.
Herman , August 20, 2017 at 9:50 am
President Trump will probably survive but the effects of his treatment by the media, politicians in both parties, and monied
folks but the way he was attacked and its effects will forever leave a mark on the Office itself. It is an unnecessary reminder
how mindless lynch mobs can be and how powerless the great majority of people are regarding what is happening and will likely
happen to them.
Hank , August 21, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Russia Gate is a Farce. If by now, the deep state has not figured out a way to make it look like a Russian hack with some "credible"
evidence that at least MSM and the masses can swallow then we must seriously doubt. Post Categories: Canada
William Blum | Saturday, June 24, 2017, 20:02 Beijing
33
Print
GR Editor's Note
This incisive list of countries by William Blum was first published in 2013, posted on Global Research in 2014.
In relation to recent developments in Latin America and the Middle East, it is worth recalling the history of US sponsored
military coups and "soft coups" aka regime changes.
In a bitter irony, under the so-called "Russia probe" the US is accusing Moscow of interfering in US politics.
This article reviews the process of overthrowing sovereign governments through military coups, acts of war, support of terrorist
organizations, covert ops in support of regime change.
In recent developments, the Trump administration is supportive of a US sponsored regime change in Venezuela and Cuba
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, June 24, 2017
******************
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.
(* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Libya 2011*
Syria 2012
Q: Why will there never be a coup d'état in Washington?
A: Because there's no American embassy there.
Tom , August 22, 2017 at 7:13 am
Putin's denial is meaningless (though he just as likely could be telling the truth) HOWEVER to my knowledge Assange has yet
to be proven wrong (must less intentionally lying) about anything. IMO he's the ONLY person in all of this who has anything resembling
a record of credibility. That MSM dismisses this demonstrates they are driven by narrative & ideology, NOT pursuit of fact/truth
Jamie , August 22, 2017 at 12:59 pm
"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake.
They were connected to, as we now know, the thousand Russian agents."
– Crooked Hillary
Large Louis de Boogeytown , August 22, 2017 at 2:58 pm
There is just as much evidence that Ukraine hacked the DNC computer and releasing the information was another one of that countries
'mistakes'. If they are capable of nothing else, Ukraine seems to produce "software experts" who are involved in EVERY dirty game
attached to the internet. The latest one is about turning the Ukrainian 'hryvnia' into real money – 'bitcoin'.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 6:34 pm
Yes, it DID rely ENTIRELY on CrowdStrike.
All CrowdStrike did was send the FBI a "certified true image" of the DNC servers. This also applies to the other two infosec
companies who weighed in on the evidence – Mandiant and FireEye. Neither the FBI or those two companies ever examined the DNC
servers, the DNC routers or other IT infrastructure which is an absolute MUST in investigating a computer crime.
That is NOT sufficient. ALL the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike is either circumstantial or easily spoofable. Therefore
the only thing the FBI can see on that "certified true image" is the "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike.
And CrowdStrike is COMPLETELY COMPROMISED by being a company run by an ex-pat Russian who hates Putin and Russia, someone who
sees Russian under every PC.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:32 pm
I should also point out that Jeffrey Carr has been saying this exact thing since the events unfolded last summer. In fact,
from an email to me, he's said he's tired of talking about it.
Jeffrey is absolutely right. NONE of the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike in any way connects directly back to ANYONE,
let alone the Russian government.
Some of it is laughable, such as the notion that the malware compile times were "during Moscow business hours." If you look
at a time zone map, you see that Kiev, Ukraine, is one hour behind Moscow time. When it's business hours in Moscow, it's business
hours in Ukraine – and can you imagine there are Ukraine hackers more than willing to frame Russia for a high-profile hack?
The National article and the research by The Forensicator does not PROVE that the DNC emails were leaked, because it is POSSIBLE
for someone to access high-speed Internet. Unlikely, as The Forensicator states, but NOT impossible. At least 17% of the US has
access to Gigabit Ethernet to the home and business. However, as The Forensicator correctly points out, it's hard to get that
kind of speed across the Internet, especially to Eastern Europe where the entity Guccifer 2.0 allegedly resides.
Further, we don't know that the copies analyzed by The Forensicator were copied originally from the DNC. In fact, The Forensicator
specially disavows that requirement. What is important to him is that the analysis proves that Guccifer 2.0 was NOT remotely hacking
from Romania because 1) the speeds involved, and 2) the timestamps are all East Coast USA times (which he acknowledges could be
faked but Guccifer 2.0 would have had little reason to do so or even think of doing so.)
The bottom line is that The Forensicator's analysis, coupled with Adam Carter's analysis of the Guccifer 2.0 entity, establishes
good solid CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is NOT a remote Romanian hacker and is NOT a Russian agent, but rather an
entity inserted into the mix to provide "evidence" that the DNC leak was a Russian hack.
And finally, of course, we have Sy Hersh being caught on tape explicitly stating that he has seen or had read to him an FBI
report that specifically states the murdered DNC staff Seth Rich WAS in contact with Wikileaks and had offered to sell them DNC
documents. And that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account where presumably he was stashing those documents or using it
to transfer them to Wikileaks.
Hersh is preparing a full report on this matter, which if it's anything like his earlier articles will bury the "DNC hack"
story completely.
Remember that "Russiagate" essentially depends on TWO critical factors:
1) That it is a fact that Russia hacked the DNC; and
2) That it is Russia that transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks – otherwise there is no real reason why Russia would hack the
DNC and it certainly did not do so to "influence the election."
If number one is weak, due to laughable "evidence" and number two proves to be false, the entire "Russia influencing the election"
story goes away. And the rest of the "Trump collusion" "evidence" is also laughable.
Now it may well be true that even if Russia did not give Wikileaks the emails they may still have hacked the DNC at some point.
I submit that if the Russian government did it, we'd never know about it. First because they wouldn't have done it over the Internet
because of the risk of the NSA detecting it (the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC) and second, they wouldn't have left
any real evidence, especially not evidence linking directly to Russia.
Russian intelligence would have either used a physical penetration of the DNC network (easily done as demonstrated by US penetration
testers all the time) or used a wireless connection into the DNC network from somewhere close to the DNC server location. That's
assuming they wouldn't use the standard intelligence tactic of bribery or blackmail to get a DNC staffer to GIVE them the emails.
In any case, the NSA would not have detected that hack, and CrowdStrike wouldn't have found any significant forensic evidence
except perhaps some evidence that forensic traces had been ERASED.
Which basically means that whoever hacked the DNC – and that is only IF the DNC was REALLY hacked, for which there is NO PROOF
except the DNC's and CrowdStrike's word since the FBI did not investigate the alleged hack itself – might have been 1) some criminal
hacker(s) from Russia or elsewhere, or 2) some other intelligence agency trying to frame Russia for a hack.
It has been suggested that Russian intelligence DOES use criminal hackers on a contract basis either to perform hacks or to
buy intel from said hackers. However, I find it unlikely that Russian intelligence would use incompetent hackers – and the DNC
hackers had to be incompetent to leave the traces they did – for such a "sensitive" hack on a political party in the US.
You can't have it both ways: 1) that awesomely capable Russian hackers are hacking everything in the US connected to the election,
and 2) that they are so incompetent as to leave easily followed trails right back to the Kremlin.
In general, so-called "attribution" of "Russian hackers "is nothing of the sort. It is merely attribution to a collection of
hacking tools and alleged "targets". With the sole exception of Mandiant identifying specific individuals in a specific building
in China, which if accurate was an impressive display of solid attribution, ninety percent of the time no individuals or agencies
can be reliably identified by attribution.
Instead, what we get is the following:
1) Someone ASSUMES that because "target X" is a government or other sensitive facility that the hacker of said target MUST
BE a "nation state actor."
2) Then some later hacker who either happens to use the same hacking tools or happens to target a similar target is ASSUMED
to be either the same hacker or associated with the same hacker. (Note: the DNC hackers are actually alleged to be TWO SEPARATE
entities – APT28 and APT29 – not including Guccifer 2.0.)
3) Thus a house is built on the sand of the first assumption and used to justify all the subsequent "analysis" and "assessments."
An example of this is German intelligence believing that Russia committed a specific hack, and that is now used as justification
for believing the DNC hack was done by the same group, when in fact German intelligence merely stated that because of the TARGET
of the hack they "assessed" that it MIGHT have been Russian intelligence.
In reality, ANY hacker will hack ANY TARGET if he thinks 1) that it will be a challenge, and/or 2) that it will be interesting,
and/or 3) that it contains PII (Personally Identifiable Information) or other data such as credit cards which he can sell on the
hacker underground. Therefore the choice of target doesn't really prove anything.
The choice of hacking tools is also irrelevant. CrowdStrike asserted that some of the tools used in the DNC hack are "exclusive".
Jeffrey Carr has proven they're not, because he spoke to Ukrainian hackers and others who have them.
Bottom line: Without HUMINT (human intelligence) or SIGINT (signals intelligence) obtained offline that specifically identifies
a given organization or individuals, attribution of a specific hack to a specific hacker(s) is almost impossible.
Most of the hackers who have been caught have been caught because they had poor operational security and allowed email addresses
and other identifying information that connected directly to their offline identity to be found. Without that, most hackers get
away, unless they can be lured into identifying themselves by bragging or being set up by a law-enforcement sting.
At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack
even occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government.
And all of the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:36 pm
Correction to my post:
"(the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC)" s/b
"(the NSA certainly was monitoring the DNC)"
now it isn't just the nytimes but the new yorker as well, with a many pages piece in its current issue that reads like a doctoral
thesis written by a gossip columnist and is a hatchet job on assange and in great part accusing him, putin and russia of electing
trump.. hope you will comment on some of the specifics the writer includes which will probably be convincing to readers of political
gossip columns and benefit from informed criticism such as you can provide..i don't believe any of this crap anyway.
"... By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter: @Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
August 19, 2017 by
Yves Smith Yves here.
This is a well-argued debunking of various "evil Rooskie" claims and is very much worth circulating.
Stunningly, there actually are people asserting that white supremacists and the figurative and now
literal hot fights over Confederate symbols (remember that Confederate flags have been a big controversy
too?) are part of a Russian plot. Help me. Fortunately their views don't seem to have gotten traction
outside the fever-swamp corners of the Twitterverse.
Author Kovalev's bottom line: When you are doing the same thing Putin and his propaganda machine
does, you're doing something wrong.
By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter:
@Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at
openDemocracy
On 11-12 August, violent clashes erupted between the far-right Unite the Right movement and anti-fascist
counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. One woman died when an alleged neo-Nazi sympathizer
rammed a car into a crowd of counter-protesters. There were numerous injuries and a major national
crisis erupted in the United States resulting from and inspired by the rapid rise of white nationalist,
neo-Nazi and other similar sentiments far to the right of the political spectrum.
As it often happens these days, numerous people on Twitter immediately jumped in, pitching the
so-called "hot takes" -- rapid, hastily weaved together series of tweets with often
outlandish theories of what really happened. These instant experts, who have come to prominence in
the wake of the Trump presidency, have carved out a niche for themselves by taking the most tangential
or non-existent connection to anything Russian and "connecting the dots" or "just asking questions".
The most egregious example is
Louise Mensch , a former UK conservative pundit (and sometime MP) now residing in the US. Mensch
is the
most extreme example of a Twitter-age conspiracy-mongering populist . But there are other people,
with more credible credentials, who are also prone to demanding that "ties with Russia" (via individuals,
events and institutions) be investigated.
Immediately following the events in Charlottesville, the writer and consultant
Molly McKew
and Jim Ludes of
the Pell Center , among others, chimed in with their "hot takes", repeating each other almost
word for word: "We need to closely examine the links between the American alt-right and Russia."
These particular expressions ("links between X and Russia", "ties with Russia", "Russian connections"
or "close to Putin/Russian government") are, essentially, weasel words, expressions so elastic that
they could mean anything -- from actively collaborating with senior Russian officials
and secretly accepting large donations from to the vaguest, irrelevant connections mentioned simply
for the sake of name-dropping Russia in an attempt to farm for more clicks.
Almost every person of Russian origin involved in the Trump drama is "Putin-connected", although
in Russia that definition only applies to a tiny power circle of trusted aides and advisors, a select
group of oligarchs running state-owned enterprises and close personal friends from before Putin's
presidency. The exaggerated tone of reporting often suggests something more far-reaching, coordinated
and sinister than a loose collection of unconnected factoids.
So, what do "links between the American alt-right and Russia" actually mean? Much of the allegations
of American alt-right's "collusion" with Putin's regime rely on the fact that Richard Spencer, a
divisive figure in this already quite loose movement, was
once married to a woman of Russian origin , Nina Kupriyanova. Their current marital status is
unclear and, frankly, irrelevant. Kupriyanova, a scholar of Russian and Soviet history with a PhD
from the University of Toronto, is also a follower of Alexander Dugin, a larger-than-life figure
in contemporary Russian media and politics. Because of Dugin's outsized presence in the western media
where he is often, and quite erroneously, presented as "Putin's mastermind" or "Putin's Bannon",
this connection is often enough to be declared the
smoking gun in the crowdsourced investigation .
Dugin has been many things to many people over his decades-long, zig-zagging career as an underground
occult practitioner in the Soviet years: philosopher, lecturer, one of the founding fathers of a
radical movement, public intellectual, flamboyant media personality. But he is not a "Putin advisor"
and never has been. Although Dugin is a vocal fan of the Russian president, has repeatedly professed
his loyalty to Putin and has orbited the halls of Russian power for more than a decade, he hasn't
accumulated enough influence to even keep a stable job.
In 2014, Dugin was fired from his position as a guest lecturer at the department of sociology
of Moscow State University. Students and academic staff had complained for years about the "anti-scientific,
obscurantist" atmosphere Dugin had created within the department (one petition filed by the students
mentions Dugin "performing extrasensory experiments" on them during lectures). But the final straw
was Dugin's interview where
he agitated to "kill, kill, kill" Ukrainians in June 2014 -- the early stages
of Russia's war campaign in Ukraine. Both Dugin and his patron, the dean of the sociology department,
were promptly fired after a major media scandal.
Later, Dugin was quite
unceremoniously removed from his position as a host on Tsargrad TV -- a right-wing,
reactionary private network funded by "Orthodox oligarch" Konstantin Malofeyev and launched with
the help of a former Fox News executive. All mentions of Dugin's show on Tsargrad simply disappeared
from the network's website.
Although Richard Spencer's own writings for his Radix Journal do have visible Dugin inspirations,
it's inconceivable that Dugin has any significant influence on the American right. His teachings
are just too eclectic, esoteric and over-intellectualised for an average American neo-Nazi who just
wants to see more white faces around him. In fact, Dugin's overarching idea of "Eurasianism" goes
against the grain of "keeping America white and ethnically pure": at its core is an obscure early
20th century Orientalist school of thought which accentuated Russia's civilisational continuity with
Mongolian and Turkic ancestors, as opposed to the spiritually alien West.
Russia's conservatives of all shades of right have indeed been long cultivating links with their
brethren to the west of Moscow -- well before Putin appeared on the scene. These
have been well documented by scholars of the far right such as
Anton Shekhovtsov . After Putin's onslaught
in Ukraine, Russia, in dire need of new allies,
intensified efforts to strengthen those links .
In the latter case, the dynamic is reversed: it's not Russia influencing the West and exporting
its values, but vice versa. It's Russia's parliamentary ultra-conservatives like
Yelena Mizulina (now a senator) who have been inspired and supported by the American religious
right.
Russia's last public attempt to unite the European and American far-right ended in a
major media scandal in early 2015 when the "International Russian Conservative Forum" in Saint
Petersburg was widely criticised in the press. The forum's Russian official supporters from the "traditionalist"
Rodina (Motherland) party allied with the ruling United Russia were forced to withdraw their endorsement,
and no further attempts to organise the forum have been made. Propaganda outlets like RT are quietly
shedding commentators with far-right sympathies like Manuel Ochsenreiter or Richard Spencer mentioned
above in an attempt to cleanse their image as a safe haven for Holocaust deniers and white power
enthusiasts. Only a couple of days after Charlottesville, Russian authorities
banned The Daily Stormer, a virulently anti-Semitic "alt-right" website, which had temporarily
sought refuge on Russian web space after having been refused service in the US.
There is little to no evidence that any of the above had anything to do with the tragic events
in Charlottesville. The resurgence of murderous, hateful ideologies in the United States is a home-grown
issue. Young men with identical haircuts and matching, uniform-like attires chanting "Blood and soil
-- " in the streets of American cities are inspired and influenced by many things, but a bearded
Russian mystic is hardly one of them. Attempting to explain internal strife in your country by "Russian
influences", hastily put together disjointed and exaggerated phenomena, is intellectually lazy. It
distracts from getting to the root of the problem by offering quick, easy answers to complicated
questions.
Ironically, it's also a very Putin thing to do. Explaining Russia's internal issues by blaming
the West's machinations is the Russian president's shtick. When you find yourself doing the same
thing Putin and his propaganda machine does, you're doing it wrong.
"... The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon. ..."
Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise.
The war veteran
has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a
series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon.
The strategist denied involvement, but he also did not speak out against them.
By the time Charlottesville erupted, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump had a powerful ally in Mr.
Kelly, who shared their belief that Mr. Trump's first statement blaming "many sides" for the
deadly violence needed to be amended.
Mr. Bannon vigorously objected. He told Mr. Kelly that if Mr. Trump delivered a second, more
contrite statement it would do him no good, with either the public or the Washington press
corps, which he denigrated as a "Pretorian guard" protecting the Democrats' consensus that Mr.
Trump is a race-baiting demagogue. Mr. Trump could grovel, beg for forgiveness, even get down
on his knees; it would never work, Mr. Bannon maintained.
"They're going to say two things: It's too late and it's not enough," Mr. Bannon told Mr.
Kelly.
The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity
politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in
Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates
at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Notable quotes:
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes
have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies
are increasingly uncertain of their future.
The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation.
WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free
but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from
there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump
is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch.
Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are
no longer so constrained.
It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on
steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the
strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor
the Democrats.
Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments
of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However,
the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because
taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.
So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms
with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch
Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans
to go along.
The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They
hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.
In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.
Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US
was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates
would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.
There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became
US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.
That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win"
Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still
so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going
to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat,
slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class
and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about
his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic
attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses
in the first person).
I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something
for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change
quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people
are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with
Hope!
That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from
a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely
find more.
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together
is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with
the "for all" emphasized frequently.
I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there
seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be
both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others,
no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of
a different way to prepare for the future.
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated
quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...
I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon
to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see
for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a
fair number of converts.
But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations
of old communists who have fallen out of favor.
As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically.
There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there
should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land.
This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.
That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true
for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.
As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a
100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.
I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings,
I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel
or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue.
Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil
War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition
of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot.
I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness.
I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the
Reconstruction and carpetbagging.
I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit
of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking
up their case in regard to free-speech:
http://tinyurl.com/ybdkrcaz
I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.
"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."
I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth
and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in
the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.
They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie
Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number
of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did
not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary:
Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist
media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the
total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.
On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New
Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing
the 2016 election.
The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.
The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the
wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon,
Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves.
After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been
ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing
out what is really happening.
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse
Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.
I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the
Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next
to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist
(or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well
to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different
ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants
to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow,
Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain
and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory
bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.
What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this
overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards
him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment
who are viewed as completely self-serving.
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public
settings.
LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered
a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to
being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for
mental health evaluation.
This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.
Chomsky:
"As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major
gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."
"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally
self-destructive."
"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who
win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the
opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing
their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within
hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group
of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even
claim that they were equally at fault.
There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect
in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence
and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media
of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.
CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly,
but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the
area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area.
A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did,
"they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large
groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.
The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the
Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and
the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will
vote" in every election.
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors
including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were
there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which
were violent and this response was no different.
However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no
effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.
So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left.
I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others,
are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how
offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not
legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.
Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an
infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:
" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word
culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others.
It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head
who have something you want. "
First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary
but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence
among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion
that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms,
this is the ethos driving the radical Left.
Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western
liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless
of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic
culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember
that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave
you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to
articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch
about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization"
is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets
to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you
over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise
out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game
that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering
as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight
to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting
for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would
do well to take their warnings seriously.
If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your
alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless
of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you
and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall
quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.
You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep
at night.
If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating,
and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail,
you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you
along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming
and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty,
and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win,
and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen.
It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.
The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who
were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution
until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate
burning it all down.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials
in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the
South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments
of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference
to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the
city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as
"a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor
said:
As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's
localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down
these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now
agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while
the decision may not be mine to make...
It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore
simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course,
the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in
force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky,
are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant
racial ideology, symbols, and flags.
Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side,
is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former
presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring
men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free
world.
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section
that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The
same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-confederate-monuments-represent-reconciliation/
. That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I
wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I
wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that
a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national
reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which
followed it. That is tragic.
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump'
presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him,
possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious
and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat
on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass
negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority
decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not
qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of
to be same.
" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."
That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites
has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states,
especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing
is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control
mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans,
especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government),
Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these
elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
What seems like a balanced eyewitness account of Charlottesville that suggests that although the
radicals on both sides brought the violence, it was the police who allowed it to happen.
The need to keep protesters away from counter-protesters particular when both are tooled should
be obvious to anyone, but not so with the protest in Charlottevlle.
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."
Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized
Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I
heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by
"teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to
be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."
These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo
chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality,
exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.
Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1
and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant
about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the
South knows the cost of war." pl
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump
and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the
Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump
is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).
But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has
no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced
from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are
because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give
me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?
When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew
their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their
filth with facts and arguments and history.
I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the
US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate
paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back,
is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his
own mental echo chamber).
If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel
system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with
fairness.
But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is
having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be
Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.
"... Former CIA chief John Brennan said Trump's comments on racial violence were a "national security risk". ..."
"... The enthusiasm for whipping up the new anti-Trump campaign seems due in large part because the erstwhile Russia-gate story has patently failed to gain any traction. For nearly seven months since Trump's inauguration, the relentless claims pushed by Democrats, the media and anonymous intelligence sources that his election last November was enabled by Russian interference have shown little impact in terms of discrediting Trump and ultimately forcing him out of the White House. The Russia-gate theme has failed in its soft coup objective. ..."
"... It is relevant that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has consistently denied US intelligence and media claims that his source was Russian hackers. Also, former British ambassador Craig Murray has confirmed that he knows the identity of the source for Wikileaks and that, as the dissenting veteran US intelligence people have assessed, the information was leaked, not hacked. ..."
"... In sum, the Russia-gate story that the US Deep State and media have peddled non-stop for seven months is on its knees gasping for lack of credibility. ..."
"... Not only that, but now technical details and expert analysis are emerging from credible former US intelligence personnel who are verifying that the Russia-gate story is indeed a hoax. ..."
"... The imminent death of the Russia-gate "scandal" is giving way to the next orchestrated campaign to oust Trump in the form of allegations that the president is a "Neo-Nazi sympathizer". ..."
August 18, 2017 "
Information Clearing House
" - The political
opponents of President Trump have found a new lever for sabotaging his presidency – his
alleged embrace of white supremacists and Neo-Nazis. He is now being labelled a "sympathizer"
of fascists and bringing America's international image into disrepute. Cue the impeachment
proceedings.
Notably, the same power-nexus that opposed Trump from the very outset of his presidency is
vociferously condemning his alleged racist leanings. Pro-Democrat media like the Washington
Post, New York Times and CNN can't give enough coverage to Trump "the racist", while the
intelligence community and Pentagon have also weighed in to rebuke the president.
Former CIA
chief John Brennan said Trump's comments on racial violence were a "national security
risk".
This is not meant to minimize the ugliness of the various Neo-Nazi fringe groups that have
lately rallied across Southern US states. Trump's wrongheaded remarks which appeared to lay
equal blame on anti-fascist protesters for deadly violence last weekend in Charlottesville,
Virginia, were deplorable.
However, the concerted, massive media campaign to nail Trump as some kind of new Fuhrer
seems way over the top. The media frenzy smacks of Deep State opponents scouring for a handy
new pretext for ousting him from office.
The enthusiasm for whipping up the new anti-Trump campaign seems due in large part because
the erstwhile Russia-gate story has patently failed to gain any traction. For nearly seven
months since Trump's inauguration, the relentless claims pushed by Democrats, the media and
anonymous intelligence sources that his election last November was enabled by Russian
interference have shown little impact in terms of discrediting Trump and ultimately forcing him
out of the White House. The Russia-gate theme has failed in its soft coup objective.
Back in January, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, the US intelligence agencies claimed
that Russia had interfered in the presidential election with the aim of promoting Trump's
victory over Democrat rival Hillary Clinton. But seven months on, no evidence has ever been
produced to support that sensational claim.
Despite this absence of "killer evidence" to damage Trump as a Russian stooge, the Congress
continues to hold investigations into the vapid allegations. And, separately, a "special
prosecutor" – former FBI chief Robert Mueller – continues to expand his
investigation, forming a grand jury and this week opening enquiries into White House staff.
Thus the whole Russia-gate affair is in danger of becoming a giant farce from the lack of
evidence. With so little to show for their herculean efforts to trap Trump as a "Russian
patsy", his political opponents, including prominent media organizations, are at risk of being
seen as ridiculous hoaxers.
A telltale sign of how bankrupt the Russia-gate story is was the publication of a lengthy
article
in Wired earlier this month. The California-based online magazine proclaims to be a
cutting-edge technology publication. Wired is published by Condé Nast, a global American
company, whose other prestige titles include Vogue, Vanity Fair and New Yorker . With a claimed
monthly readership of 30 million, and an editorial staff of over 80, Wired is supposed to be a
global leader in new technology and communications.
According to its advertising blurb, "Wired is where tomorrow is realized", adding: "It is
the essential source of information and ideas that make sense of a world in constant
transformation".
Therefore, as a US technology forum, this publication is supposed to be the elite in insider
information and "nerdy journalism". With these high claims in mind, we then turn excitedly to
its article published on August 8 with the headline: "A guide to Russia's high tech tool box
for subverting US democracy".
On reading it, the entire article is a marathon in hackneyed cliches of Russophobia. It is
an appalling demonstration of how threadbare are the claims of Russian hacking into the US
election last year. Citing US intelligence sources, the Wired article is a regurgitation of
unsubstantiated assertions that Russian state agencies hacked into the Democratic National
Committee last July and subsequently used whistleblower site Wikileaks to disseminate damaging
information against Trump's rival Hillary Clinton.
"According to US investigators", says Wired, "the hack of the DNC's servers was apparently
the work of two separate Russian teams, one from the GRU [military intelligence] and one from
the FSB [state security service], neither of which appears to have known the other was also
rooting around in the Democratic Party's files. From there, the plundered files were laundered
through online leak sites like WikiLeaks and DCLeaks Their impact on the 2016 election was
sizable, yielding months of damaging headlines".
Nowhere in the Wired article is any plausible technical detail presented to back up the
hacking claims. It relies on US intelligence "assessments" and embellishment with quotes from
think tanks and anonymous diplomats whose anti-Russia bias is transparent.
Wired's so-called Russian "tool box for subverting US democracy" covers much more than the
alleged hacking into the DNC. It accuses Russia of using news media, diplomats, criminal
underworld networks, blackmail and assassinations as an arsenal of hybrid warfare to undermine
Western democracy.
Wired declares: "And they are self-reinforcing, because in Russia the intelligence
apparatus, business community, organized crime groups, and media distribution networks blend
together, blurring and erasing the line between public and private-sector initiatives and
creating one amorphous state-controlled enterprise to advance the personal goals of Vladimir
Putin and his allies".
This is an astoundingly sweeping depiction of Russia in the most slanderous, pejorative
terms. Basically, Wired is claiming that the entire Russian state is a criminal enterprise. The
Russophobia expressed in the article is breathtaking – and this is in a magazine that is
supposed to be a leader in technology-intelligence.
Wired tells its readers of Russia having a "Grand Strategy" – to undermine Western
democracies, and multilateral alliances from NATO to the European Union.
With foreboding, it warns: "[T]he Putin regime's systematic effort to undermine and
destabilize democracies has become the subject of urgent focus in the West the biggest
challenge to the Western order since the fall of the Berlin Wall".
The salient point here is that despite its grandiose professional claims, Wired provides
nothing of substance to support the narrative that Russia hacked into the US election. If a
supposed cutting-edge technology magazine can't deliver on technical details, then that really
does demonstrate just how bankrupt the whole Russia-gate story is.
Moreover, another nail in the coffin for the Russia-gate narrative was recently provided by
a respected group of former US intelligence officers called Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS). Last month, the group
wrote
to
President Trump with their expert analysis that the DNC incident was not a hack conducted via
the internet, but rather that the information came from a DNC insider. In other words, the
information was a leak, not a hack, in which the data was transferred by person out of the DNC
offices on a memory disk. In that case, Russian agents or any other internet agents could not
have possibly been involved. The key finding in the VIPS analysis is that the information
obtained from the DNC computers was so vast in file size, it could not have been downloaded
over the internet in the time period indicated by meta-data.
It is relevant that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has consistently denied US intelligence
and media claims that his source was Russian hackers. Also, former British ambassador Craig
Murray has confirmed that he knows the identity of the source for Wikileaks and that, as the
dissenting veteran US intelligence people have assessed, the information was leaked, not
hacked.
In sum, the Russia-gate story that the US Deep State and media have peddled non-stop for
seven months is on its knees gasping for lack of credibility.
Even a supposed top technology publication, Wired, is embarrassingly vacant of any details
on how alleged Russian hackers are supposed to have interfered in the US election to get Trump
into the White House. As if to compensate for its dearth of detail, the Wired publication pads
out its "big story" with hackneyed Russophobia worthy of a corny James Bond knock-off.
Not only that, but now technical details and expert analysis are emerging from credible
former US intelligence personnel who are verifying that the Russia-gate story is indeed a
hoax.
The Deep State and other political/media opponents of Trump are inevitably scrabbling for
alternative means of sabotaging his presidency. They are finding that the Russia-gate ploy to
get Trump out of the White House is in danger of collapsing from lack of evidence and from the
emergence of a plausible explanation for the DNC breach that damaged Clinton's election
campaign. The bottomline is: it wasn't the Russians, so all the hype about Trump being a
Russian stooge is a case of fake news, just as Trump has long maintained.
The imminent death of the Russia-gate "scandal" is giving way to the next orchestrated
campaign to oust Trump in the form of allegations that the president is a "Neo-Nazi
sympathizer".
Trump's nationalistic America First views may be suspect, even reprehensible in
their wider association. That's not the point. The point is the concerted, orchestrated way
that the Deep State will rail-road the new campaign to oust Trump in place of the failing
Russia-gate ploy. The contempt for democratic process raises the question of who the more
dangerous American fascists are?
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a
career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he
worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent.
Given the current level of hysteria, few people are going to check your facts. This is one
you can really have fun with. See how far you can push the paranoia. Make up elaborate
conspiracy theories. If you're not quite sure how to go about that, check
The New York
Times
or
The Washington Post
they're masters of that kind of thing.
Your anti-Nazi loyalty oath should definitely
not
include any of the following:
(1) Any mention of the Ukrainian Nazis that Obama, Clinton, and the rest of the Resistance
(before it was the Resistance, of course) helped regime-change the Ukrainian government when it
wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Mentioning the Resistance's support of these Nazis
would only confuse those reading your oath, who might not understand that there are good Nazis
and bad Nazis, and who have probably forgotten how the US government smuggled a number of
actual Nazis (i.e., members of the NSDAP) into America after WWII or how, since the end of that
war, the United States has mass murdered countless millions of people all over the planet (but,
technically, not in a genocidal fashion, so that doesn't make us the same as Nazis).
(2) Actual membership figures on neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, because those
figures are pathetically small. Doing this would make your loyalty oath (not to mention the
whole Nazi hysteria thing, generally) seem, if not paranoid, then at least absurd, or like part
of some manufactured effort to whip up support for a ruling class coup by waving Nazis in front
of everyone's faces. This would be extremely counterproductive. Remember, one of the primary
goals of the De-Putin-Nazification program is to convince the public that Richard Spencer (and
the handful of other insignificant idiots that the corporate media is showering with publicity)
is about to lead an overwhelming force of tiki torch-bearing neo-Nazis into the streets of
American cities to battle the hyper-militarized police, the national guard, and the US
military, or some other preposterous scenario like that.
(3) Any reference whatsoever to the corporatocracy that runs the country, and that normally
decides who can run for president, and which is currently making an example of Trump in order
to dissuade any future billionaires from having the audacity to fuck with them. You'll be
better off avoiding this subject entirely, as it only reminds folks how screwed they are, and
how, odds are, they're probably all worked up about something the corporate-owned media wanted
to get them all worked up about, neo-Nazis, Russian hackers, nuclear war with North Korea,
Syrian gas attacks, lone wolf terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, or whatever. Take it
from someone who's worked in show business. No one likes being made aware of how they are being
manipulated or provided with a binary set of officially acceptable contextual parameters within
which they can think and speak.
But don't worry too much about that binary stuff. There'll be plenty of time to get into all
that after we rid the world of these Nazis, and these racists, and all these Confederate
statues. And Trump, of course. That's the main thing getting rid of Donald Trump, and getting a
Democrat back in office. Oh, yeah and the books. We need to look at the books. God knows how
many Confederate books are still out there in the public libraries, and in people's homes,
where children can read them. We'll need to get to the books eventually.
In the meantime, focus on Priority One. Go hard on the Nazi hysteria, at least throughout
the rest of the weekend, after which they'll probably need to switch us back to the Russia
hysteria, or possibly the North Korea hysteria, or damn, see? Here I go with that contextual
parameter stuff again. I've really got to stop doing that. The last thing I need is to get
myself accused of being some kind of Nazi sympathizer, or Confederate apologist, or Russian
propagandist, or extremist, or terrorist, or, you know whatever.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel,
ZONE 23
, is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at
cjhopkins.com
or
consentfactory.org
Indeed it is hysteria & the madness of crowds in the USA, to a degree never seen
before in our lifetimes
Perhaps the cleverness of Trump & others with him, is instinctively understanding
that, this hysteria cannot be directly defused given its elite & corp media support, but
now the fire must simply be left to run its course, until it burns itself out, in the end
forcing a widespread recognition of the absurdity, & enduring shame for those who
fostered it
This may explain including such nominal feints such as the jettisoning of 'goy' top
advisor Steve Bannon to give the antifa etc hysterics more fuel for their fires
Interesting article by, of all people, David P Goldman aka 'Spengler' of Asia Times,
arguing that Donald Trump may at the moment be making an extremely clever riverboat gamble
-
Siding with the more common-sense ordinary people of both USA Democrat & Republican
political parties, as those parties implode and split into pieces, & possibly building a
new, core, more sensible political centre once the current hysteria has run its course
Trump will reach out to Democratic voters who are alienated from a leadership that has
devoted most of its energy to a radical social agenda instead of bread-and-butter
solutions, and he will appear to a majority of his own party. I do not know whether he will
succeed; if he does, the self-inflicted wounds to the erstwhile arbiters of American
opinion will be fatal.
'The Bloody Shirt of Charlottesville and its unintended consequences'
When all the Confederate Statutes are taken down, what replaces them?
The Anti-fascist replacement:go google photos of Hillary Clinton pick the Hillary Clinton
photo with Hillary wearing the most hideous of her pantsuits that's the one that will replace
General Lee .A statue of a psychopathic War Criminal bulldyke who was organized and gave the
order to mass murder Conservative Russian Christians in the Eastern Ukraine on behalf of
Neo-Nazis.
Hillary Clinton created Al QUEDA and ISIS .enabler of Ukraino Nazis ..
Hillary Clinton..the poster girl for the Antifa Tranny Freaks .and the cucked White
Protestant Male Ministers standing up to hate in Charlottesville
Nicely provocative, an essay that seems more likely than a lot published here to get
through to Americans not yet divided-and-conquered.
Another way to help people you know and care about to get beyond the TV-level dumbshittery
afflicting the country: posit whether ANY statue, plaque, etc., of ANY politician, military
"hero," or other person being thus celebrated for exercising governmental authority is worth
funding with taxation, much less squabbling over.
Yet another panic reaction to Charlottesville, I suppose. Small correction of fact: the
Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Quite
the contrary, indeed. It was when Yanukovych decided that he would sign the EU association
agreement that he was overthrown or, more correctly, that he simply fled. NATO was never an
issue. As with Mr Zuesse, the polemical style and the pro-Putin line suggest growing fear in
the pro-Putin camp.
@Michael
Kenny
Yet another panic reaction to Charlottesville, I suppose. Small correction of fact:
the Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO.
Quite the contrary, indeed. It was when Yanukovych decided that he would sign the EU
association agreement that he was overthrown or, more correctly, that he simply fled. NATO
was never an issue. As with Mr Zuesse, the polemical style and the pro-Putin line suggest
growing fear in the pro-Putin camp. As usual, you're dead wrong. Yanuvovich ultimately did
not
sign the EU agreement:
The political provisions of the treaty were signed on 21 March 2014 after a series of
events that had stalled its ratification culminated in a revolution in Ukraine and
overthrow of the then incumbent President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. This ousting was
sparked by Yanukovych's refusal to sign the agreement.
As far as NATO is concerned, it is unlikely that Ukraine will be joining in the near
future, because of Transnistria and because it has two border disputes with Russia. But the
country can still be used as a cat's paw to get at Russia (just like Georgia under
Sakashvili), which is even better from Washington's point of view, since they don't even have
to give the Ukies any security guarantees if they get into trouble with Russia (again, just
like Georgia under Sakashvili).
You are right, hypocrisy rules. What else is new? Civil war has nothing to do with what
happened in Charlottesville. These monuments stood for ~100 years or longer and caused no
violence. It is important to face this fact, as well as the fact that the violence in
Charlottesville was started by self-proclaimed "liberals". Considering how shamelessly they
push lies in the media and how they violently suppress any opinion that differs from theirs,
these "liberals" are anything but. What we are witnessing is yet another string of
provocations by those who are sore that their beloved mad witch spent twice as much money as
Trump and lost. Mind you, I am no fan of Trump, but I don't trust that lying corrupt to the
core "alternative" an inch. As far as Hillary is concerned, from my viewpoint her gender does
not matter. What matters is massive fraud in the Democratic primaries (that's why Debbie
Wasserman-Schulz resigned as a head of DNC in 2016 right before the convention she presumably
prepared), as well as the fact that Hillary never gave a speech w/o at least $100,000
"speaking fee", took vast amounts of money from the most unsavory sources, including Saudi
Arabia (the same one that murders people by public beheading with a curved sword, exactly
like ISIS, and keeps murdering hundreds of civilians in Yemen), and was openly supported by
the most notorious neocons from both parties. I would not trust a male with this kind of
record, either.
Trump's words that removal of monuments is "sad" and "so foolish" arguably are his first
intelligent utterance in months. History does not change no matter what people do, and it has
a way of punishing those who forget or try to erase it. Only cowardly scum fights monuments.
I am deeply ashamed that some scenes from my country resemble those earlier seen in hopeless
basket cases, like present-day Ukraine.
Look, events in Boston vindicating the Alt Right narrative in Charlottesville.
All the violence is instigated by 'counter-protesters', as the globalist CBS calls
them.
They are Antifanissary thugs and lunatics who oppose free speech and side with Wall Street
and the War State.
I'm glad this event happened. At this event, there were no Confed flags, no one with Nazi
flag, and no extremists.
There were only patriots defending free speech, but the Antifanissary scum attack just the
same.
Trump should talk about this.
Globalist War on Free Speech and Free Assembly.
Barking dogs on leash who can't tolerate the howl of free wolves.
Thank the Police on this. The State, in this case, defended those defending freedom of
speech and assembly.
But the Corporations will all side with PC Proglodytes.
But there will be blowback. Just like the Jihadis supported by the US turned on the West,
these Antifa scum will turn around and bite the corpies.
In a way, the bogeyman of 'nazi' is very useful to corporations. Capitalists know that the
Far Left hates them and wanna smash windows, burn down Starbucks, create havoc in upscale
cities like Seattle, and etc. And capitalists fear BLM and black thugs too.
If 'nazis' didn't exist, these restless Antifa and BLM would likely be doing Occupy Wall
Street, rioting in gentrified parts of town, attacking yuppies and hipsters, and attacking
GREED.
But if there are 'nazis' as bogeyman, the corporations can direct all Antifa and BLM rage
at the 'white supremacists' who actually have no power and wealth.
Also, as having sponsored the Antifa and BLM, the corpies hope that the far-left and black
thugs will be grateful and not attack them.
But there is blowback sometime down the line. you've made an important point, Priss:
"Nazi," "Hitler," "Swastika" and "Holocaust ™ " are
brands
created by and for
corporate interests; the narrative behind these brands does NOT represent history, it is the
product of Bernays/hasbara. That is, its basic appeal is to emotion, deliberately bypassing
reason and critical analysis.
Corporatists, zionists and Jews *** are striking back as hard as they are, and attempting
to associate "hate" with "Nazi" as often as they can, in an exercise in Brand Spanking: as
Sam Shama let slip the other day, spanking the Nazi etc. brand is essential because more and
more people are
waking up
.
Charlottesville was, indeed, a set-up: some PR shop managed the affair and cucksertive
media are following the script to a Tee.
On C Span on Aug 15, John McArdle hosted an exercise in propaganda so obvious you have to
wonder if UVa might consider rescinding his diploma. McArdle invited callers to opine on
Trump's statement on the C'ville events; in the 61 minute program, he spoke the word "hate"
41 times: once every 90 seconds.
"Hate" was associated with "white" at every opportunity.
If a caller failed to link "hate" with "white/supremacists/nationalist," McArdle prompted
them to do so.
The history of the era of the European-Jewish wars is a radically different entity from
the branding.
Before the history can be made more fully consistent with reality -- an absolute essential
for a the "well informed citizens" in a representative form of government -- the "Nazi" etc.
brands have got to be torn apart: shattered, fragmented.
One of Eddie Bermays's first triumphs was to persuade elite women that smoking cigarettes
was chic.
Years and many deaths later, cigarettes now carry a warning from the Surgeon General that
cigarettes can kill you.
The same thing has to happen to the deadly way the Jewish PR/media has bastardized "Nazi"
Hitler" "Swastika" .
It must be made clear in every instance that the people who inserted the toxic ingredients
in those brands had only their own revenue stream in view, and not full and truthful
information for the American public.
!!!
*** Jews -- and they can be named & should be shamed -- were at the vanguard of branding
"Nazi" "Hitler" and "Swastika" with the epithet
Hate
nearly a decade before a single
hair on a Jewish head was so much as mussed: James Waterman Wise, son of Rabbi Stephen Wise,
published a book titled "Swastika" in about May, 1933.
The book opened with the declaration that "the swastika represents hatred of the Jew."
@Anon
I've listened to nearly a 24-hour day's worth of C Span programming about Charlottesville;
I've heard "hate" and "Nazi" and "KKK" and "white supremacy" said so many time my ears are
numb and my cerebral cortex overdosed.
I have NOT heard, in all that C Span programming, one, single, solitary guest or
journo-phoner discuss what Robert E. Lee stood for; or his correspondence with Lord Acton,
about the necessity of state sovereignty to guard against an oppressive centralized power
that could take a country to war with no bulwark against its force.
Incredibly -- and I have to post this for all to see: a Jewish woman called C Span to
complain that Jewish interests were not represented in C Span programming on
Charlottesville.
Here's what she said:
Moderator: Let's go to Virginia Beach, Virginia; Betty is on the line for Democrats:
BETTY: Good morning. Thank you for C Span. I want to say one thing. The two gentlemen
you just had on were fine, *** but I'm extremely disappointed because I happen to be Jewish
and I was in Connecticut, which I'm originally from Newtown, Connecticut [and spent ] the
last weekend there visiting my family there.
I heard more news when I got home. But what I'm disappointed about -- I don't know if C Span
ever invited -- I know you've had Jewish people on talking before, but with the
Charlottesville thing, I don't know if you've invited anybody from the Anti Defamation
League or a rabbi or some other Jewish person to come on, representing a group, because
it's awful with the KKK but it's also awful with these Nazis marching -- Nazis marching down
in Charlottesville! Both groups are – are- are terrible. It was a horrible thing to
see such a thing in 2017 in the United States of America.
And one other thing, and I mean, these other networks, I mean, I don't just sit home and
watch TV but I watch C Span, I watch CNN, I watch MSNBC quite a bit --
I haven't seen too many uh Jewish commentators come out and talk. And I really I appreciate
and respect the Black commentators that have come on, but I don't know why there hasn't
just! Let me make one more comment please:
All the Jews and people of color that are in -- I don't think there's too many, but the ones
that are in the Trump administration really should resign after what he said.
I'm glad Steve Bannon is gone. But he uh he uh Trump himself in my opinion is a sympathizer
to these groups, that's how I feel, I mean that's how I feel.
And just, I mean, y'know uh uh they're wimps, and especially his son-in-law. He's supposed
to be an Orthodox Jew? No, I'm not even a religious Jew, but I mean in my heart, that's
what I am. But I mean, he's a wimp! He shouldn't be in there with his father-in-law! He
should get up and walk out! That's how I feel.
And real quick !I was so proud to get a letter from President Obama -- I was always going to
write him -- I always been a big supporter of his from the very very beginning. And uh I
wrote him a letter before he left office, and now I have a framed letter from President
Obama on my wall and I'm very very grateful for that.
Thank you very much for allowing me to make my comments.I00:10:04
Mod. Geoff Bennett: Thank you for your suggestion about our programming. We will take it
under consideration.
In fact, several persons who are "Jewish in their hearts" (or at least their names)
appeared on C Span to explain the many sins of the "white supremacists."
The one group (in addition to sound historians on Robert E Lee) that was not represented
in C Span program over the course of this hysteria was a single representative of the Unite
the Right project.
There are plenty of articulate voices that C Span could have hosted to better inform its
audience.
Julian Assange has the evidence – but will he reveal it?
There's an exciting new development in the "Russia-gate" investigation, one that has the potential to blast apart what is arguably
the biggest hoax in the history of American politics.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) has
met with Julian Assange – the first US congressman to do so – and returned with some spectacular news:. The Hill
reports :
"Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last
year's election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future."
Assange has maintained all along that the Russians had nothing to do with procuring the DNC/Podesta emails, despite the intelligence
community's assertions – offered without evidence – that Vladimir Putin personally approved the alleged "hack." Yet credible challenges
to this view have emerged
in recent days,
including
from a group of former intelligence officials, that throw considerable doubt on the idea that there was even a "hack" to begin with.
"Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents," says The Hill ,
"Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. 'Julian also indicated that he is open to further
discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,' he said."
What this looks like is an attempt by Assange to negotiate with the US government over his current status as a political prisoner:
he has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for many years. Hanging over him is the threat of arrest should he leave
and his rendition to the United States to face charges. Could he be making a bid for freedom, offering to provide evidence of how
he got his hands on the DNC/Podesta emails in exchange for a pardon?
Rohrabacher, who has a history as a libertarian fellow traveler, has been the target of a smear campaign due to his unwillingness
to go along with the Russophobic hysteria that's all the rage in Washington, D.C. these days. Politico attacked him in a piece
calling him "Putin's favorite congressman," and "news" accounts of this meeting with Assange invariably mention his "pro-Russian"
views – as if a desire to get along with Russia is in itself somehow "subversive."
It's a brave stance to take when even the ostensibly libertarian and anti-interventionist Cato Institute has jumped on the hate-on-Russia
bandwagon. Cato
cut
their ties to former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus because he refused to accept the War Party's line on the US-sponsored
Ukrainian coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected chief of state. But it gets worse.
Here 's Cato senior fellow Andrei Illarionov saying
we are already at war with Russia:
"First of all, it is necessary to understand that this is a war. This is not a joke, this is not an accident, this is not a
mistake, this is not a bad dream. It will not go away by itself. This is a war. As in any war, you either win or lose. And it is
up to you what choice you will make."
And it's not just a cold war: the conflict must, says Illarionov, contain a military element:
"First, in purely military area, it is quite clear that victory in this war cannot be achieved without serious adjustments
made to the existing military doctrine. Certainly, soft power is wonderful, but by itself it does not deter the use of force."
While the rest of the country is going about its business with nary a thought about Russia, in Washington the craziness is pandemic.
Which is why Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Adrienne Watson felt safe vomiting up the usual bile in response to Rohrabacher's
initiative: "We'll take the word of the US intelligence community over Julian Assange and Putin's favorite Congressman."
The power of groupthink inside the Washington Beltway has energized both the neo-cold warrior hysterics –
epitomized by the imposition of yet more sanctions -- and the "Russia-gate" hoax to the point where it is unthinkable for anyone
to challenge either. Yet Rohrabacher, whom I don't always agree with, has the balls to stand up to both, and for that he should be
supported.
Assange has stubbornly resisted revealing anything about the provenance of the DNC/Podesta emails, allowing the CIA/NSA to claim
that it was the Russians who "hacked the election," and also giving them a free hand to smear WikiLeaks as an instrument of the Kremlin.
This meeting with Rohrabacher, and the promise of revelations to come, indicate that he is reconsidering his stance – and that we
are on the verge of seeing "Russia-gate" definitively debunked.
We here at Antiwar.com have challenged the "mainstream" media's wholesale swallowing of the government's line from the very beginning.
That's because there hasn't been one iota of solid proof for blaming the Russians, or even for the assertion that the DNC was "hacked."
We don't accept government pronouncements at face value: indeed, we don't accept the "conventional wisdom" at face value, either.
We always ask the question: " Where's the
evidence? "
"... For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran. ..."
"... Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false. ..."
"... But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours. ..."
"... Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible. ..."
"... "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
"... The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored. ..."
A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives
is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans
and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance. Part of the reason
for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national
news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that
is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.
But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals
and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting
the Left's disgust with President Trump
People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts
have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more
difficult.
The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions
on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties,
passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.
The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan,
Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky
and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.
In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating
tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia
and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on
the table just where the neocons want it.
The Putin Obstacle
As for Russia, the
neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since
2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military
strike over
dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus
on Aug. 21, 2013.
Subsequent
evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.
While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would
benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking
on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed
states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to
shatter
the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.
Many neocons are, in effect, America's Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi
Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence
to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran's regional allies, i.e., Syria's secular government
of Bashar al-Assad
For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations
with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb
and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S.
military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary
and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.
Punishing Russia
It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman
identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize
of removing Putin in Russia.
Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria
Nuland and Sen. John McCain , delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including
neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.
When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification
with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move
as a "Russian invasion." Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who
defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the
neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin's assistance to
these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became "Russian aggression."
Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were
swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade
earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the
violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with
U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.
But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved
extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change"
war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.
Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially
flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian
affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to
kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.
Successful Propaganda
As part of this propaganda process, the
jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories
to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for
fear of being beheaded.
Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely
chemical attack,
the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous
pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the
alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the
other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.
Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has
said ,
"Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history
of the American press."
But all these successes in the neocons'
"perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.
Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to
the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome
and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame
Russia.
The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called
Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of
the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence"
contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible
to trace.
So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the
government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , to come up with an
assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared
the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched
his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
'Hand-Picked' Analysts
According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked"
from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama
left office. Their
Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that
it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us"
approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.
Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy
Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had
been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt
Romney
The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America
as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate
stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky
Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by
the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies.
So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday
column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point
about Washington groupthink.
"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been
the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that
the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom
of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.
Lost Logic
But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling"
in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is
now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute
despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the
Russian government.
Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions
bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:
"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing
Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential
election has been outrageous."
However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents.
Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support
its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.
Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation
true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political
motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush
's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene
in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.
But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial
pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers
at CNN and other cable outlets.
Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia
with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive
for more "regime change" wars.
There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect
of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear
war, more likely.
In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani , "We told you so" that the U.S.
government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with
the nuclear agreement.
And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from
his own hardliners who view him as naďve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.
Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs
signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente
between Washington and Moscow.
In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and
coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party
hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of
nuclear war is being ignored.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
This is article by the person recently fired by McMaster for promoting "deep state" theory of the coup against Trump. The hypothesis
that does makes some sense ;-).
But primitive anti-Islamism does provide much insights into the situation, In snot American Imperialism and neoliberal globalization
it promotes and enforces by force (sometimes by force of arms) destined to produce blowback? the fact that some of it runs on Islamic
banners is mostly immaterial. Also the USA is using political Islam for its purposes since the days of The USSR occupation of Afghanistan.
The fact that attempts to resist neoliberal globalization in Islamic world often decent into barbarity and head chopping should
not obscure the reason political Islam obtained traction and the leading role of the USA in forming the current brand as a tool to make
the USSR occupation of Afghanistan the second Vietnam for the USSR. In was a social experiment hatched in the USA political laboratories
as a countervailing force for Soviet Bolshevism (which was a decaying ideology since mid 60th, in any case and eventually was overthrown
by the forces of neoliberalism in the USSR space) that eventually went wrong. and this reckless political experimentation is hall mark
of the USA foreign policy for a long time.
So is Muslim Brotherhood which definitely has deep connection with Obama administration was a threat, or a tool for the US led global
neoliberal empire (Huma Aberdeen of
Hillary Clinton
email scandal fame is one example) ? Kind of universal door opener for neoliberal globalization for countries that try to resist
it. This is the question.
Notable quotes:
"... Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight. ..."
"... The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the Caliphate, spreading across the globe using videos of Christian beheadings and other atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including open FBI cases in all 50 states. ..."
"... A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in any strategic threat assessment. ..."
Picture a breakfast meeting on the morning of September 11, 2001 between Mullah Omar, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Osama bin Laden,
the three leaders of al-Qaeda. While eating their yogurt and fruit, they discuss the successful September 9th assassination of Ahmed
Shah Massoud and the imminent strikes in Washington and New York.
Could they have imagined that a short 15 years later:
The United States would be approximately $20 TRILLION in debt.
Iraq in sectarian civil war and Afghanistan under increasing Taliban (ISIS) control would both have Constitutions placing those
Republics under Sharia Law, and U.S. ally Turkey would be moving quickly into the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) camp.
Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak would be removed from power in Egypt, replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, then replaced by Abdel
Fattah el-Sisi and the U.S. would support the MB.
Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states
descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight.
Nigeria, West Africa (Boko Haram) and Somalia (al Shahbab) under threat.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons and receives $150 BILLION courtesy of the U.S. government while
Saudi Arabia builds hundreds of Wahhabi mosques in Indonesia and in South America.
Nascent Islamic insurgencies in France, Italy, Germany, England, Belgium and other European countries fueled by millions of inassimilable
Islamic immigrants who reside in "no-go zones" and who are flooding into Europe as well as the U.S. receiving social welfare benefits
paid for by the citizens of those counties.
The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the Caliphate, spreading across the globe using
videos of Christian beheadings and other atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including
open FBI cases in all 50 states.
U.S. presidential candidates from both political parties saying "the Islamic State is not Islamic" while U.S. and European patriotism
is considered racism.
National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead
to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors.
If you could go back in time and tell Messrs. Omar, Zawahiri and bin Laden this would be the outcome in just 15 short years,
do you think they would believe you? Do you think that they would think that their side is winning?
When a tactical fire-team breaches a door expecting four bad guys on the other side, but they find forty, what do they do?
Do they keep going in? That's a one-way trip.
Do they ask one of the bad guys why there are so many of them in the room? Probably wouldn't be a smart move to hang around
for the answer. Not smart at all.
Ideally, the team backs out quickly and moves off the target. This is called a tactical pause and that is basically what Donald
Trump has proposed in the form of a halt on immigration.
After getting out of danger, the tactical team will do a reassessment of what happened. Was their information wrong? Did they
go to the wrong house? Did somebody purposefully give them bad information? Can they call in an air strike? All of these things need
to be considered.
A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue.
The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful
sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never
dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in
any strategic threat assessment.
At present, Mr. Trump's proposed course of action pertaining to the terrorist threat is a tactical pause and a strategic reassessment.
This proposal isn't rhetorical, alarmist or ill-conceived. This is smart tactics being applied to a strategic issue.
Rich Higgins is currently a DOD contractor. He formerly led several classified programs for Special Operations Command.
He is the former Chair of Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict at the National Defense University's College of International
Security Affairs.
Donald Trump is guilty of something, guilty as sin. Nobody outside his innermost circle knows yet what he is guilty of, and all
the evidence is circumstantial. But guilty he surely is.
Is it that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton? That is the story line that corporate media
take for gospel truth. It is not out of the question that some Russians, some of whom had some connection with the Russian government,
hacked into something. Even if they did, however, the Russian meddling story is ridiculously overblown – for reasons that are politically
self-serving and irresponsibly, if not criminally, dangerous.
If catastrophic outcomes can somehow be avoided, that story will eventually go the way of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Before that happens, however, count on Vladimir Putin's affront to the "integrity" of American democracy being used to justify devastating,
potentially catastrophic, diplomatic and military adventures -- in much the way that Saddam Hussein's WMDs once were.
By the time the dust settles, it will likely become clear that either there never was any reason to accept the party line on Russian
meddling or that, even if there was something to it, there was never any reason to get all worked up about it.
This is not to say that "Russiagate" investigations should be opposed; quite to the contrary, there is every reason to support
them fully.
If nothing else, investigations like Robert Mueller's and the ones underway in the House and Senate help keep Trump and the people
he has brought into his administration from executing their nefarious agendas. Better yet, they are likely, before long, to bring
Trump himself down – in ways that would make it harder for Trump's appointees and, when the times comes, for Mike Pence to turn many
of the progressive gains of the past hundred or so years around.
But the fact remains: the election meddling furor is, at best, a red herring – about which all one can honestly say, for now,
is: Who knows? Who cares?
Who knows – because the only reason to think that there was Russian meddling is that "the intelligence community" says there was.
But, as everybody knows or ought to know, they are inveterate liars. Lying is in their genes and in their job descriptions.
Moreover, if history is a guide, they are just as likely to be wrong as to be right, even when they aren't deliberately telling
lies.
Everybody also knows that the CIA in particular is not above politicizing intelligence when it serves some institutional purpose.
Who knows too – because liberal and not-so-liberal media have been pressing the case for Russian election meddling so vigorously
for such a long time that the idea has become almost second nature to all but the most circumspect consumers of news. In cases like
this, the wisest course of action usually is to become more, not less, skeptical.
It is hard to say which media outlet is the most at fault; the competition is so intense. The Washington Post and
The New York Times are serious contenders, though it must be said, in fairness, that the Trump menace seems to have reignited
a taste for real investigative reporting – about Trump -- in both of them. For that, one could forgive a great deal.
But they are still, on the whole, a servile lot. My vote for the worst of them all is MSNBC, with Joy Reid leading the way and
Rachel (take twenty minutes to make a twenty second point) Maddow close behind.
A character in Edgar Allan Poe's "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether" advised believing only half of what one sees
and nothing that one hears. Inasmuch as most of what one sees and hears about Russian meddling in the 2016 election are breathless
repetitions of claims originating in the intelligence services, this is good advice in the case at hand.
The problem is not "fake news," news reports that are deliberately deceptive. Trump blathers on endlessly about that – in his
usual, self-serving, bullying way – using the term so loosely as to void it of meaning. On this as on so much else, what comes out
of Trump's mouth and what one reads in his tweets is sheer nonsense.
It is true, of course, that, under his aegis and inspiration, there has been an up-tick in deliberately false news stories, mainly
in "alt-right" media outlets. But there is little, if any, genuinely fake (deliberately false) news in mainstream media. This side
of Fox News, and sometimes even there, most journalists do try to maintain journalistic standards. They are not pathological liars,
little Donald Trumps.
What they are, wittingly or not, are propagandists – in the sense discussed long ago by Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman in Manufacturing
Consent (reprint edition, Pantheon, 2002). Ď
Through the workings of the several mechanisms described in that book, they fashion and reinforce narratives, story lines, that
accord with the interests of the owners of the corporations they work for and, when the need arises, with the interests of the entirety
of what C. Wright Mills called the "power structure." At the same time, they derogate and marginalize counter-narratives that have,
or could have, effects detrimental to the interests of the people and institutions they serve.
Their express intention, of course, is to report the news, not to maintain the status quo; they don't set out to deceive. More
often than not, they believe the stories they tell. Why would they not? The system they are part of incentivizes compliance with
the power structure's interests; and, when tensions arise, it is generally easier to go along than to be a stickler for plausibility.
***
For getting mainstream media to sign on to the election meddling narrative, it would be difficult to underestimate the importance
of the role played by a key component of the power structure in the United States today, the Democratic Party.
That is how desperate Democrats are to make sure that Clinton's stunning, self-inflicted defeat last November will not be Clintonism's
(neoliberalism's, liberal imperialism's) last hurrah. To that end, they have been willing, even eager, to revive Cold War demons
that had lain dormant for decades -- bringing the world to the brink of a nuclear apocalypse.
Ostensibly the less noxious of the two neoliberal parties that dominate our politics, Democrats today have sunk so low that were
Republicans still no worse than they were, say, when they fell into line behind George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's Afghanistan and
Iraq Wars, or even before Obama's 2008 electoral victory made many rank-and-file Republicans bat shit crazy, it would now be an open
question which party actually is the greater evil of the two.
The consensus view in mainstream media lately, in the Democratic Party, and increasingly in the Republican Party as well, is that
Trump is doing grave harm to the office of the Presidency and to many of the institutions, both domestic and international, through
which the United States has dominated the world since 1945.
This is certainly the case. But, contrary to what is assumed throughout the power structure, it is at least debatable whether
Trump's effect on these institutions – and the negative effect his presidency is having on the GOP itself – is, on balance, a good
or bad thing.
Instead of rallying around the Democratic Party, a genuine Left would itself be taking aim at the bastions of empire and class
rule that Trump is mindlessly but inexorably undoing. Trump's way is nihilistic and thuggish; and the only alternatives he or his
cabinet secretaries and agency heads have in mind are odious even by Republican standards.
This is why the Trump presidency is, and will continue to be, an unmitigated disaster – no matter how much damage Trump does to
the old world order or to some of the more disabling institutional arrangements afflicting the political scene.
Democrats can be and, for the most part, actually are, monumentally awful, but Republicans who support Trump are worse. This would
not be so plainly the case, if the comparison was with pre-9/11 Republicans or even with the Republican Party before the 2008 election.
After all, if the appropriate metric is damage to world peace, geopolitical stability, and the wellbeing of humankind, Bush is
still the worst President ever. Of course, if Trump mentally decomposes more than he already has, or if he starts acting out in exceptionally
lethal ways, he could surpass even the standard Bush has set. For now, though, six months into the Trump era, W remains Number One
How revealing, therefore, that the very media that, to their credit, have nothing good to say about the billionaire buffoon, are
now welcoming Bush, and his underlings, back into the fold.
In polite society nowadays, Obamaphiles, including Obama himself and his First Lady, even seem to regard Bush the Younger as one
of the good guys; and miscreants from his administration are featured in all the leading media outlets. How pathetic is that!
To his credit, however, Bush, unlike Trump, was not blatantly racist or nativist in his public pronouncements; and notwithstanding
the fact that he and Cheney waged war on the Muslim world, he wasn't overtly Islamophobic either. The party he led generally followed
suit.
However, once he was gone, Tea Partiers and Tea Party fellow travelers didn't have anything holding them back. With Obama at the
helm of the empire, it didn't take long for them to make the Party over in their image.
For appearance sake, the Republican Party became the Party of No, but what they really were was the anti-Obama-for-all-the wrong-reasons
Party. Republicans had no principled reason to turn Obama into Public Enemy Number One; his political views, which he did little
to advance in any case, were more or less in line with those of pre-2001, or even pre-2008, Republicans.
Obama's rival in the 2012 election, Mitt Romney, was essentially a pre-2008 Republican; politically, he and Obama were cut from
the same cloth. Tea Partiers didn't like that one bit, but even the most "deplorable" of them never hated Romney the way they hated
Obama. What set their hatred off was the color of Obama's skin.
How else to account for eight years of "repeal and replace Obamacare" sloganeering? In substance and genealogy (its origins in
the Heritage Foundation, the implementation of something very like it in Massachusetts under Governor Mitt Romney) Obamacare is essentially
a Republican program. Had it not come with Obama's name attached, doctrinaire free-market theologians of the Rand Paul or Ted Cruz
variety would still not like it, but neither would they or any of their co-thinkers get especially worked up on its account.
Nevertheless, it was opposition to Obamacare, more than anything else, that kept the GOP's several factions together during the
Obama years. How ironic that all those "repeal and replace" Republicans are now floundering because when they finally got their chance
to do what they said they wanted to do, they were unable to do anything at all. It is tempting to say that they outsmarted themselves,
but the word "smart" grates when applied to them.
Democrats are generally nicer than Republicans, and many times more civilized. Were their self-exonerating anti-Russian, anti-Putin
campaigning not so dangerous, they would plainly be the good guys still, comparatively speaking.
Even with their hysterical Russophobia, they probably still are. But being comparatively less awful than the GOP is no reason
to buy into the election meddling story that Democrats are so assiduously promoting.
It is possible, of course, that despite all the reasons to be skeptical of their narrative, there is some truth in what they say.
Even if there is, however, why make such a big deal or it? Who cares?
Evidently, pundits with venting privileges on ostensibly liberal cable networks do and Democratic Party sore losers, but their
concerns are misdirected. No one, not even the worst of the worst on MSNBC, claims that those dastardly Russian meddlers affected
the outcome of the election in any significant way. Russians didn't defeat Hillary Clinton; she defeated herself.
It is not for want of trying that no one has been able to make a plausible case for the claim that, but for Russian meddling,
Clinton would have beaten Trump. But, alas, no one has been able to maintain that Russians had anything to do with collecting or
counting votes, or that they interfered with the workings of the electoral process in any other way.
The idea instead is that they depressed Democratic turnout by diminishing enthusiasm for Clinton. They did this, supposedly, by
providing evidence of the Democratic National Committee's efforts to rig the election for Hillary and against Bernie Sanders, and
by demeaning Clinton in ways that Democrats and their friends in the mainstream press don't even bother to try to spell out.
If only the Democrats and their media flacks would evince half as much self-righteous indignation over past and on-going Republican
efforts at voter suppression! There is no doubt that they were real and that their consequences were significant. Neither is the
case with alleged Russian voter suppression efforts last year.
Moreover, even if the Russians did do all that our propagandists claimed they did, they did nothing worse than what countless
homegrown political operatives do when they sell candidates to voters in more or less the way that commercial advertisers sell the
wares they peddle to targeted audiences.
The difference is morally significant. If the Russians actually did suppress voter turnout in 2016, it was through one or another
form of persuasion. Republicans suppress votes by making it difficult, or impossible, for likely Democratic voters -- African Americans
and other "persons of color" mainly, but also students, and many elderly citizens -- to exercise their right to vote.
***
The consensus view notwithstanding, the Russian election meddling narrative is short on compelling evidence, and is grounded in
a patently defective rationale. Even so, it could still have merit.
But even if there was meddling as charged, nothing much came of it. This has always been obvious, and it too is significant.
Sanders supporters didn't need Russians to tell them that the Democratic Party wanted Bernie to lose and Hillary to win. Everyone
paying attention knew that already. Clinton's shortcomings were also evident for all to see.
Therefore, if the story line being pushed by our "manufacturers of consent" is on track, it would only show that those Russians
are not nearly as clever as the propagandists vilifying them would like people to think. By documenting the obvious, what they did
made about as much sense as throwing buckets of water into the ocean.
Why then is Trump putting the extent of his ineptitude on display by acting as if he is about to block the Mueller investigation
into Russian meddling? Trump may not be the magisterial dealmaker his remaining fans believe him to be, but he is surely not as self-destructively
stupid as his actions suggest.
The answer must be that he really does have something to hide; something more damaging than anything the mainstream media narrative
suggests.
Trump doesn't know much, but he surely does know that Congressional investigations and Justice Department investigations involving
special prosecutors take on lives of their own, even when, in the first instance, they are much ado about nothing. Watergate was
only "a third-rate burglary," after all.
He is also shrewd enough to realize that his business machinations give Congress and the Justice Department plenty to investigate.
There is sleaze galore out there, waiting to be uncovered.
Therefore, in the weeks and months ahead, if Trump is still around – or even if he returns to the gilded monstrosity on Fifth
Avenue that he had built to glorify himself, leaving arch-reactionary Mike Pence in charge -- we will have loads of well-corroborated
reports of shady (artful?) deals with Russian oligarchs and, insofar as there is a difference, Russian mobsters, making the news
interesting again.
This is sheer speculation, of course; and the evidence, what there is of it so far, is circumstantial. Much of it consists of
idiotic tweets that suggest nothing more damning than an acute consciousness of guilt. Ě
Nevertheless, I would bet the ranch, if I had one to bet, that honest and determined investigators with subpoena power scratching
beneath the surface, will find incontrovertible proof of legal, moral, or political infractions so egregious that even the fools
who still refuse to admit that Trump conned them into thinking that, as President, he would somehow make their lives better, will
find it impossible to keep on standing by their man.
Trump is guilty, a hundred times over; and it is plain as day too that whatever it turns out to be that he is guilty of, that
his over-arching cupidity and vanity made him do it.
Finding out what he is guilty of should be at the top of every competent authority's to do list. It should also become a consuming
passion of journalists who, for their own good and the good of the public they serve, no longer want to propagandize for the beneficiaries
of the status quo.
Because the power structure is so thoroughly and uniformly intent on dumping Trump – not for wholly creditable reasons, but, for
a matter of such urgency, that hardly matters – opportunities for doing authentic journalism, even in the face of the propaganda
mechanisms Herman and Chomsky identified, now exist to a degree that would have seemed unimaginable before November 2016.
It is a complicated business, however because the same anti-Trump animosities that make it possible to mobilize the press against
the government also enable the Democratic Party to enlist support, in media circles and more generally, for the demonization of Putin
and his government, with all the dangers that ensue.
So, by all means, investigate, investigate, and investigate some more – taking care, however, not to be sidetracked onto false
paths where perils of Clintonite design threaten to spin out of control in ways that even competent statesmen, like Putin and Sergey
Lavrov, would have a hard time diffusing, if they still had reasonable interlocutors in Washington to work with.
Those are, to put it mildly, in short supply. With Trump in the White House and a bipartisan (but Clinton inspired) neocon consensus
in Congress, reasonable interlocutors in Washington are about as numerous as genuine progressives in the Democratic fold.
Join the debate on Facebook More articles
by: Andrew Levine
ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell)
as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the
Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy)
at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to
Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics
of Illusion (AK Press).
"... The fact that now the US propaganda machines has accused Russia of "arming the Taliban" ..."
"... I've been expecting this for some time. ..."
"... No sooner had WW II ended than the West started on the Cold War, designed to create fear, panic and hysteria in the US–and Europe–so the Deep State types could regal Americans with tales of a nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers and the like 'gaps' that those devious Rooskies had on the US and we just had to spend all sorts of money to build machines of death to keep 'Old Glory' flying high. And use that excuse to go after people and head-hunt those who didn't goose step to this new artificial reality. ..."
"... When the Iron Curtain fell, within 18 months, the West had a new boogeyman, Saddam and on 9/11, that was enlarged to include the Islamic world, who we just have to fight over there so we don't fight them in Baltimore, not that any sane nation would want to invade most of our big cities, it's too dangerous. ..."
The fact that now the US propaganda machines has accused Russia of "arming the Taliban"
I've been expecting this for some time. Funny how the blame falls on the Russians–without
proof as usual. Little if any mention of the 16 years of U.S. occupation.
Churchill started making speeches; the recent book on the brothers Dulles documents extensively
Allen Dulles' extreme beliefs about Communism, so radical that he favored fascism and Nazis over
the Commies. He became the father of the CIA, and made sure that many in the Nazi spy apparatus
found homes in the United States, then went on a decade long crusade to crush communism in Italy
and several other countries.
It is you who is silly. Writing some nonsense about something in the archives somewhere when
there is evidence in the West that's been right in front of your face? You couldn't be that stupid,
could you?
And by the way, do you know the difference between Trotsky and Stalin? Trotsky wanted world-wide
revolution; Stalin wanted communism in the USSR, no world-wide revolution. Do you know who won
that argument?
You probably don't. Stalin did.
Furthermore, are you familiar with the Game theory basis for the Cold War? It was the lunatic
schizoprhenic John Nash, who was certifiably insane when he cooked it up, and years later, when
he his schizophrenia was on the wane, repudiated his own theory!
The Cold War was cooked up in the West by state actors. Don't talk your nonsense. I agree.
No sooner had WW II ended than the West started on the Cold War, designed to create fear, panic
and hysteria in the US–and Europe–so the Deep State types could regal Americans with tales of
a nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers and the like 'gaps' that those devious Rooskies had on the
US and we just had to spend all sorts of money to build machines of death to keep 'Old Glory'
flying high. And use that excuse to go after people and head-hunt those who didn't goose step
to this new artificial reality.
When the Iron Curtain fell, within 18 months, the West had a new boogeyman, Saddam and
on 9/11, that was enlarged to include the Islamic world, who we just have to fight over there
so we don't fight them in Baltimore, not that any sane nation would want to invade most of our
big cities, it's too dangerous.
"... Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism." ..."
"... Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man." ..."
"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as
Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up
of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who
committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid
investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million
court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang .
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals
finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national
security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for
infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating
"terrorism."
Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were
bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be
unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against
unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their
man."
From witch hunt there is a very small distance to "show trials". Show me the man and I will find
the crime --
Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria
, head of Stalin's secret police
Notable quotes:
"... several members of the team have come under fire for their previous donations to Democrats, ..."
"... "You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people!" Trump said Thursday on Twitter . ..."
... Yet despite the lawyers' resumes and reputations,
several members
of the team have come under fire for their previous donations to
Democrats,
prompting some critics to cry foul on the investigation
and urge Trump to fire Mueller.
Trump himself has even weighed in:
"You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American
political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people!" Trump
said Thursday on
Twitter
.
The US Deep State witch hunt against President-elect Trump has taken all the distinct
characteristics of "show trials".
Notable quotes:
"... Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition. ..."
"... And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person. ..."
"... What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." ..."
"... So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices. ..."
The "Sorkinization" of American politics; a cultural phenomenon engendered by the works of
Hollywood director Aaron Sorkin -- in which Washingtonian politics is romanticized as some grandiose
theatrical production, in which the protagonist (normally a liberal archetype) wins against his
unscrupulous foe (usually a conservative stereotype) by simply giving a rousing speech or clever
rhetorical foil. You see it everywhere in Washington, D.C. -- beltway pundits breathlessly waiting
to share together in that idyllic "
Sorkin moment "; whether it was Hillary's hoped-for victory speech last November or, now,
waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller astride his white horse to out the "evil Trump clan"
for sins and improprieties.
This, of course, is all a Hollywood fairytale. What currently is taking place under Mueller's
direction resembles not so much a magnanimous crusade for truth and justice; but rather another
example of what happens when bureaucrats are taken off the leash. It becomes the classic tale
of a government lawyer in search of a crime.
Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory
from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all
the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition.
Rather than setting specific parameters
for his investigation, or having them set for him, the order appointing Mueller, by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein grants Mueller almost limitless leeway in his probe, be it relative to
"any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with
President Trump's presidential campaign (which likely would not constitute a crime), to federal
regulations that relate to crimes that are among the most subjective, such as obstruction of justice
and witness intimidation.
As one might expect, Mueller has taken the ball handed to him, and is off and running; like
Diogenes with his lamp in search of an honest man, but here a prosecutor with a subpoena in search
of a guilty man.
Not bound by any real budget constraints, Mueller already has begun building an investigatory
army with which to haunt the Trump Administration for as long as he wants; or, at least, for as
much time as it takes to find something to prosecute. That Mueller will find something
is a virtual certainty given the vast scope of his appointment, and the lack of oversight by the
Department of Justice now that Attorney General Jeff Sessions hastily (and, in my opinion, needlessly)
recused himself. And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal
laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed
to find some violation of some law to pin on some person.
What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds
Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal
and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets
his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing
the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel
choices.
The troubling, and lasting ramification of this melodrama, however, is the precedent it sets
for future federal investigations. The degree of legal leeway given to Mueller is deeply bothersome.
As law professor John C. Eastman notes in a recent article, the absence of virtually any limits
on Mueller's power harks back to the days of the British empire's use of "writ[s] of assistance"
and "general warrant[s]" to target and harass American colonists through invasive searches of
homes, papers and possessions – with no judicial oversight, probable cause, or expiration date.
"That is the very kind of thing our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent,"
writes Eastman , "[i]ndeed, the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance is quite
arguably the spark that ignited America's war for independence."
At the end of all this (if there is an end), America will be left a little more divided (if
that is possible), and the Bill of Rights even weaker than today. If we were living in the "West
Wing," it wouldn't really matter; but we are not living in Sorkin World. We are living in the
real world; where government power run amok has very real and damaging effect on the way of life
envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as enshrined in the United States Constitution.
Podgorica: US Vice President Mike Pence on Wednesday accused Russian-backed agents of attempting to assassinate the prime
minister of Montenegro during an alleged coup attempt last year
Russia`s intentions were laid bare over the past year when Moscow-backed agents sought to disrupt Montenegro`s elections, attack
your parliament and even attempt to assassinate your prime minister", Pence said at the Adriatic Charter Summit.
He said the attack aimed "to dissuade the Montenegrin people from entering our NATO alliance"
On its way down the side of the toilet bowl, Washington will try to drag everyone else with it. I don't think it has any credibility
now, with its constant hysterical blaming of Russia for every single thing that is not to its liking. And the ridiculous pretense
that Montenegro will contribute in any meaningful way to the defensive strength of the NATO alliance is just comical – it has
become all about snatching territory away, allegedly out of Russia's grasp. I hope NATO does pour money into the Baltics like
there's no tomorrow – the Balts will gladly take it, but NATO will see no return on its money, and unless it comes up with a way
you can burn bullshit for fuel they will still depend on Russia for their energy.
"... This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: ..."
"... Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency. ..."
"... The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. ..."
"... Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed. ..."
"... Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal. ..."
"... In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite? ..."
"... Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers. ..."
"... I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change. ..."
"... The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. ..."
Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte
as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in
building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had
originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the
neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: "Donald Trump should not be
president .He doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president." The Washington Post greeted
her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom , as "a repudiation of Trump's
America First worldview."
Thus it wasn't surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate
for State's No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very
top of the State Department's hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries
across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush's failed policies
of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the
highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus.
Not only was Abrams' entire career a refutation of Trump's America First foreign policy, but he
had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however,
he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign
policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve
Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: "This
is a question of character. He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
.his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy .Hillary would be better on foreign
policy. I'm not going to vote for Trump ."
But Abrams' rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could
not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private
comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains)
to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not
with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy.
But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never
left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared
to move.
Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex
Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons
just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president's
policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have
been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don't know any other world view or any
other people.
Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading
Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their
support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized
the Beltway's hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China's military buildup and economic
threat to America.
Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would
stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America's military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus
particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and
promote a carefully calibrated America First policy.
But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president
has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign
policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted
by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other
words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two
of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of
war and peace.
Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good
standing of the neocon elite. He's also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in
close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the
anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign,
and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine.
A passage: "My wife said, 'never,'" said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long,
pale hand. .Even if you say you support him as the nominee," Hook says, "you go down the list of
his positions and you see you disagree on every one."
One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior
adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network.
Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide
Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly
made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how
senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the
brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.
According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists,
from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker,
executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president
of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations,
Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States.
Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative,
has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself
for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether
ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.
Then there's Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She
was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite
the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part
of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a "Never
Trumper" and has questioned the president's mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided
editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it.
Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with
the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration's National Security Strategy.
Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump's
national security strategy.
How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration?
And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America
First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney's entire foreign
policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance.
Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not
prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state,
tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb.
He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal
arms strictly to "moderate rebels." Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced
in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor
an open ended, unresolved war.
Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson
at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose
foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go
way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she
endorsed his presidential bid in 2011 .
As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more
in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump's America First policies. Some samples:
"I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They've always been full of themselves.
But that's – its more of a façade that they try and show as opposed to anything else."
"What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and
its what we do."
"The United States calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a
part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over
the peninsula to Ukraine."
One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says
it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the
Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people
of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since
1776?
Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United
States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation
with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism?
Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with
the President?
On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that "Haley's remarks set the tone for Trump's
reversal from the less interventionist, 'America First' foreign policy he campaigned on." Little
wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her
book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump's foreign policy team. "The
current national security team is terrific," she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing
following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the
schoolmarm's pat on the head: " He was engaging," she said. "I found him on top of his brief .asking
really good questions." That's a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he "doesn't
have the dignity and stature to be president."
American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will
of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots
and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very
raison d'etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige,
power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in.
Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting
the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.
This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power.
Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede
in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will
return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base
in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the
needless carnage.
Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and
Generals, Copperhead.
This is all very convincing, but the point remains: Trump won and is the one responsible for allowing
all these neocons through the door. Had Pat Buchanan won the nomination and the Presidency back
in the nineties, does anyone believe he would make the same blunders, and not be equipped to find
the right traditional conservatives instead of the establishment DC neocons that try and swamp
every GOP Administration now since Reagan? Trump is simply too naive and doesn't have any feel
for the political ideologies of all of these people, being not much of a political animal himself.
And replacing Priebus with General Kelly isn't likely to change all that. He should be talking
to Ann Coulter and Buchanan as unofficial advisers or something.
Interesting argument, though you ignore other factors besides the conspiratorial-sounding "Romney
network" that account for American interventionist neo-conservatives finding their way back into
power: 1) that they are by far the largest group of people available to staff the government because
of a) the dominance of aggressive liberal internationalism over more restrained realism in graduate
schools which educate these foreign policy specialists; b) an inherent bias of these specialists
not to admit that America cannot influence world events (that would be like a social worker who
didn't believe s/he could usually mediate conflicts). Also, 2) Trump's alleged non-interventionist
beliefs are less well-formed than you imply, you just project on him what you wish to see; a)
you ignore his comments about taking the oil of other countries, an idea the neo-conservatives
had as a way to pay for operations in Iraq; and b) Beliefs closer to Trump's core: that others
not paying their fair share and that America is being taken advantage of, are not incompatible
with the American interventions you oppose.
You can't hijack an executive's policy unless the executive is either hopelessly weak or a faker.
Doesn't matter which.
The only good part is that the fake image of a somewhat less warlike "Trump", stirred up by
the media to destroy Trump, is actually DOING what a real non-interventionist Trump would have
done. EU is breaking away from US control, just as a real antiwar Trump would have ordered it
to do.
Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter
futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American
people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency.
It's good to see Ron Maxwell published in these pages. I watch Gettysburg at least once a year.
And don't think Virginians aren't grateful for Maxwell's role in helping put paid to Eric Cantor's
political career.
The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing.
We didn't vote for this. And we don't want it.
Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging
us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can
be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies
into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy
knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for
neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed.
Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working.
We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal.
"Trump is a smart guy" ..
??
If so; why does he not see this happening all around him? Except for his pompous, ignorant, hands-off
method of governing, that is . The Emperor has no clothes but doesn't seem to know, nor care that
he doesn't
Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, Texas A&M at the American Conservative
Conference "Foreign Policy in America's Interest" (Nov 15 2016) said:
"In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making
American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful.
Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree
on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate
in the foreign policy establishment.
You see, debate is – basically goes from here to there [Dr. Layne puts his two index fingers
close together in front of his face], like from the 45-yard-line to the 45-yard-line. And why
does it stop there? Because people who try to go down towards the goal line have their union cards
taken away. They're kicked out of the establishment. They're not listened to. They're disrespected.
And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs
system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say,
"Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to
change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think
Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite?
Where is a Trumpian
counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary
and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the
NSC staffers.
I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who
are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign
policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that
will change.
Over time maybe a counter-elite will emerge. But in the short term I see very little prospect
for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see, and so for me the challenge that we
face is really to find ways to develop this counter-elite than can staff an administration in
the future, that has at least what we think are the views that Donald Trump holds."
We're in a new period – a period of learning for President Trump and for those in the administration
who back his anti-establishment foreign policy view. And while it is true that (as Chris Layne
said) "in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are
hoping to see," as we move into the medium and long term, many of us are hopeful that these big
Trumpian foreign policy changes can begin to be made.
A senior administration official familiar with the work of Nadia Schadlow, a national security
expert brought on to help draft the National Security Strategy, tells CR that she will attempt
to produce an NSS as "iconoclastic as our new commander in chief," adding, "the era of milquetoast
boilerplate is over."
The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. Neocons developed
their minds in the Cold war dealing with a western power, the USSR. The problem is that once one
enters the Middle East and Asia one is dealing with languages and cultures of which they [knew]
next to nothing. How many speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu such that they understand every
nuance of what is said and unsaid?
When dealing with the arabs and many in Afghanistan everything is personnel and this can go
back 5 generations and includes hundreds if not thousands of people.
Trump has the common sense not to become involved in that he does not understand.
They come back in boxes while those who sent them to their deaths remain in the bags of the "America
Second" group which highjacked our Congress. It's no longer "God Bless America"; it's "God Help
America."
"... With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes. ..."
My conclusion is that the Deep State is winning. Even I've getting numb and increasingly less interested in the twists and
turns of who's investigating whom and why and what are the likely consequences.
I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Lavrentiy Beria: "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."
The likeliest and most obvious choice for Trump on how to escape the Mueller trap seems to have eluded Pat Buchanan: starting
a war in the Middle East to overshadow or bury all investigations into the president's wrongdoings. Engineering a war with Iran
would fit the bill perfectly.
With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in
times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another
ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes.
McGovern thinks that it was Brennan boys who hacked into DNC as a part of conspiracy to implicate Russia and to secure Hillary win.
One of the resons was probably that DNC servers were not well protected and there were other hacks, about whihc NSA know. So the sad
state of DNC internet security needed to be swiped under the carpet and that's why CrowdStike was hired.
NSA created 7 million lines of code for penetration and that includes those that were pablished by Wikileaks and designed to imitate
that attackers are coming (and using the language) from: China, North Korea, Iran and Russia.
Also NSA probably intercepts and keeps all Internet communications for a month or two so if it was a hack NSA knows who did it and
what was stolen
But the most unexplainable part was that fact that FBI was denied accessing the evidence. I always think that thye can dictate that
they need to see in such cases, but obviously this was not the case.
Notable quotes:
"... She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands. ..."
Love the rest of the talk, but no way did Hillary win. No way did she get the popular vote.
The woman was calling for war and reinstating the draft on men and women. She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps
rallies were packed with 10's of thousands.
At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine
.? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
If Trump wants to survive he should FIGHT! He call out the Deep State explicitly, using the words "Deep State." and explaining machinations
to the public. This creates a risk for his life, but still this is the only way he can avoid slow strangulation by Muller.
Notable quotes:
"... In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State." ..."
"... Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election - Trump
should pardon whoever - case closed. ..."
"... Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling
Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.] ..."
"... Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....] ..."
In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State."
Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election
- Trump should pardon whoever - case closed.
Trump should say that right now - put the onus on Mueller to do the right thing and not take down the election over small
nothings.
Peace --- Art
... ... ...
Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling
Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....]
Now the most strange event: why investigation was outsourced go dubious security firm CrowdStrike, and FBI was completely excluded,
falls in place.
Notable quotes:
"... That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack. ..."
"... copied (not hacked) ..."
"... what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days
before the Democratic convention last July. ..."
"... The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll. ..."
"... "The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails
related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own
"forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy
(onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste
job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI. ..."
"... We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate
Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... someone within the DNC who was presumably anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail
so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would
be not on the content of the emails themselves but on Russian meddling in the election. ..."
"... This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak
but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence. ..."
"... As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike
was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that
the Russians were responsible. ..."
"... Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which
is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer,
and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian
template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack."" ..."
"... This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly
aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal in
effect a fraud. ..."
"... Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the
DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the
fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade the
FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would presumably
have quickly exposed the fraud. ..."
"... in the absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever
was a hack. ..."
"... "Guccifer 2.0" might be the creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of
the original leaker seeking to cover his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the
concoction of some opportunistic narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with
him. Unfortunately there are such people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion. ..."
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind
the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections
of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded. ..."
Forensic report by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity implies that DNC/Podesta hacks and "Guccifer 2.0' personas
were concocted to discredit Wikileaks in advance of publication of the DNC/Podesta emails and to cast suspicion on Russia.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ("VIPS"), one of the most formidable commentary groups in the world, which includes
such heavyweights as William Binney, the former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of
NSA's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center, the former top CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and many others, has published
another in its highly
enlightening series of public memoranda addressed to the President of the United States.
... ... ...
The Key Event
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected
to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device.
That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack
by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed
on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear
aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack." This was all performed in the East Coast time zone .
.the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named "Guccifer
2.0." The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing
DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton
bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who "hacked" those DNC emails?
The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll.
"The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have
emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to
insert its own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling."
. The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a
copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with
a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
In what I am now going to say I am going to join up the dots in a way that takes me beyond me what the VIPS actually say. If by
doing so I am misunderstanding and misrepresenting the new evidence and I apologise in advance and I would ask them to correct me.
Briefly, the scenario suggested by the new evidence is explained by the VIPS by reference to a brief chronology in this way
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to
publish "emails related to Hillary Clinton."
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces
that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims
to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move
to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
I have always expressed doubts that "Guccifer 2.0" has any connection either to Russian intelligence or to Wikileaks or was actually
the source of the emails published by Wikileaks..
What this scenario seems to be suggesting is that following the revelation by Julian Assange on 12th June 2016 in a British television
interview that Wikileaks was about to publish damaging emails about Hillary Clinton someone within the DNC who was presumably
anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not
on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would be not on the content of the emails themselves but
on Russian meddling in the election.
This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak
but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence.
Here I should say that I have always thought "Guccifer 2.0" to be a far too crude and obvious persona to be a front for Russian
intelligence. Also I have never understood why – assuming it really was Russian intelligence which stole the emails – they would
want to create such a persona at all. Surely by doing so they would be merely providing more clues leading back to themselves?
As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike
was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that
the Russians were responsible.
Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which
is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer,
and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian
template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack.""
This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly
aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal
in effect a fraud.
Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the
DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the
fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade
the FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would
presumably have quickly exposed the fraud.
The last point of course goes directly to the one which people like Daniel Lazare and "richardstevenhack"have made: in the
absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever was a hack.
If the scenario that appears to be set out in the VIPS memorandum is true then it would seem that there never was a hack and that
the evidence that there was is concocted.
Before proceeding further I should say that there might be contrary arguments to this scenario. "Guccifer 2.0" might be the
creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of the original leaker seeking to cover
his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the concoction of some opportunistic
narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with him. Unfortunately there are such
people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion.
What however argues against these alternative theories is the involvement of Crowdstrike, as well as the FBI's willingness to
be persuaded to accept Crowdstrike's report rather than carry out its forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers.
Perhaps whoever it was who concocted "Guccifer 2.0" was simply lucky that neither the DNC nor John Podesta nor the FBI seem to have
been keen on a proper investigation. However on the face of it that does seem rather unlikely.
Of course it is also open to anyone who does not agree with the scenario outlined by VIPS to contest the conclusions of their
forensic investigation. However if that is to be done successfully then whoever will do it will have to match the expertise in this
field of people like William Binney and Skip Folden. That does look like a rather tall order.
At a relatively early stage of the Russiagate scandal I said that the true scandal – which the concocted Russiagate scandal seemed
intended to conceal – was the illegal surveillance of US citizens during the election.
If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind
the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections
of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded.
That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United
States is in profound crisis.
Far more evidence is needed if what is still only a possibility is to be accepted as true, but the fact remains that unless I
have misunderstood them completely the highly experienced and professional people who make up VIPS have just published a memorandum
which points in that direction.
"... Unfortunately for all his bluster about being a fighter, Trump did none of this. ..."
"... Five minutes after he became president he should have been going after Obama and the Clintons and burying the Russian hacking
nonsense before it had time to grow wings. He didn't and now he's paying the price. ..."
My conclusion is that the Deep State is winning. Even I've getting numb and increasingly less interested in the twists and
turns of who's investigating whom and why and what are the likely consequences. I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Lavrentiy
Beria: "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."
Reports of his frustration and rage suggest that he knows he has been maneuvered, partly by his own mistakes, into a
kill box from which there may be no bloodless exit.
He asked for it so he could play tough guy on the world stage. Only a fool, (especially at his age), would actually want the
job, so I hope he doesn't expect any sort of pity party.
When dealing with the left, you can never apologize and never back down. Double down and punch back twice as hard. Anyone on
the alt right could have told Trump this.
Unfortunately for all his bluster about being a fighter, Trump did none of this.
Five minutes after he became president he should have been going after Obama and the Clintons and burying the Russian hacking
nonsense before it had time to grow wings. He didn't and now he's paying the price.
"... This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride. ..."
"... "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of." ..."
This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald
Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that
supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free
ride.
It is shocking how inept the Trump family and the Russians are. To survive they will have
to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people. It is said that cassette tapes
brought down the Soviet Union. Today we have the internet.
Yesterday I read Tim Hayward's "It's Time to Raise the Level of Public Debate about
Syria". Appendix 1 states the obvious:
"The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie
becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly
difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the
effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth
just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda
campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the
tip of."
"... There was a time when Jonathan Freedland might have been considered an embarrassment to The Guardian but nowadays The Guardian has itself become an embarrassment to Fish and Chip wrappers. ..."
"... I've never spent much time on the JFK assassination since the proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming. If you want more, watch this short video of JFK's Secret Service team being ordered off his limo shortly before he was shot. ..."
Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their own
homeland as " a kind of
triumph ," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks on the Trump presidency.
His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian , while making little original contribution to the intellectual debate over the
progress of the Trump administration, have instead revealed much about the paranoid preoccupations of Freedland, the Left, and elements
of the organized Jewish community.
Until recently, Freedland's rantings have been predictable. In Freedland's caricature-like portrayals, Trump
emerges as a shameless, dictator-like figure who "respects no limits on his lust for power." Rarely shy of a dramatic turn of
phrase, Freedland writes about his prior enthusiasm for the Constitution of the United States -- a document he sees as guaranteeing
a multicultural state -- and his growing unease that this same document somehow permitted "a dangerous man" like Trump to assume
office: "Trump is testing my admiration for that document -- testing it, perhaps, to destruction." Freedland has lamented that democracy
in America "now stands naked -- and vulnerable."
Freedland's opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted merely
in generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest. Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive to Jewish social
and political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for the Jewish Chronicle. W hile he rarely, if ever,
mentions his Jewishness to the Guardian 's mass readership, in his writings at the JC Freedland is significantly
less circumspect. In March, for example, he
wrote in the
JC that Trump "is no friend of ours and the correct Jewish stance on Trump was one of vigilant opposition."
Trump's 'crimes,' according to Freedland, have included the White House statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did not
mention Jews or antisemitism. Freedland further complains that Trump "has no instinctive sensitivity for Jewish concerns. Any condemnation
of antisemitism has to be either scripted for him or else extracted under pressure. More troublingly, he has an uncanny knack for
speaking to and about Jews in a way that thrills antisemites." More embarrassingly for Freedland, he was one of the most vicious
and persistent critics of Trump's assertion that the bomb threats called into a number of Jewish buildings were probably made by
Jews. At the height of the controversy, Freedland had written:
Trump was asked in a meeting of states attorneys-general about the wave of bomb threats to Jewish community centres. According
to those present, Trump speculated that, rather than taking these incidents at face value, they should consider that "sometimes
it's the reverse, to make people -- or to make others -- look bad." Trump reportedly used the word "reverse" two or three times.
What can this mean, except an implication that these threats to Jewish buildings were made by Jews themselves, to damage Trump?
The notion of "false flag" attacks is a staple theme of the far right. In this context, it is a classic antisemitic trope: that
anti-Jewish attacks are invented by cunning Jews to win underserved sympathy.
How unfortunate for Freedland that this 'classic antisemitic trope' was later very soundly confirmed.
Not one to waste his talents, Jonathan Freedland has for several years published fiction under the pseudonym Sam Bourne. His earliest
pulp novels appear to have been an attempt to cash in on the success of Dan Brown's thriller formula, and the syllable similarity
in the two names shouldn't be considered accidental. In these novels, one can discern Freedland/Bourne using fiction to play out
personal fantasies. For example, The Righteous Men (2006) is a trashy religious thriller which derives its subject matter
from Jewish folklore and has "a faction of the Christian Church" in the 'bad guy' role. The book was later followed by
The Final
Reckoning (2008), a revenge fantasy about a group of so-called "Holocaust survivors" who set out to assassinate former National
Socialists.
To Kill The President , Freedland/Bourne's very recently published 'thriller,' has taken matters to a new extreme, blending
the author's history of anti-Trump journalism with his penchant for fictional ethnic revenge fantasies. Of course, no-one in the
Trump administration is named in the latest novel, but Freedland makes no attempt to disguise his meaning. In the 'feminist' plot
of To Kill the President , a female White House aide (and "avowed liberal") uncovers a conspiracy to murder a recently elected
populist president who unexpectedly won an election against a female Democrat who attracted criticism for being careless with her
email service. The President, described as a "cheat and bigot," offends the political and media establishments with "the tweets,
the lies, the grotesque misconduct, the acts of unwarranted aggression." One scene includes the President grabbing a female assistant
by her genitals in the Situation Room, where staff have been summoned in the middle of the night because the President plans to launch
missiles at China and North Korea.
Using a puppet then, Freedland gets to vent his spleen, casting the most vulgar accusations and insinuations against Trump without
fear of a libel suit.
Freedland's portrayal of Steve Bannon is also noteworthy. The novel's President, an unstable demagogue, is ultimately a marionette
dancing to the tune of a "ruthless chief strategist" with an Irish name -- in this instance Bannon becomes Crawford 'Mac' McNamara.
McNamara/Bannon saunters around the White House as if he is President, talking down to women and acting every inch the alpha male.
The Bannon caricature presented by Freedland has been likened to a "middle aged rock star." One senses that Freedland is made deeply
uneasy by Bannon's opaque role within the White House administration, as well as his perceived masculinity -- not to mention his
opposition to Muslim immigration and his generally populist attitudes. Much could be read into the fact that Freedland offers
no fictional portrayal of Jared Kushner.
The novel thus offers insight into the minds of our opponents. Their fears, insecurities, and yes, their sick fantasies, are right
here in black and white. But most importantly this is a work of incitement. Given the current context of increasingly violent Leftist
conduct and rhetoric, To Kill The President should be interpreted as a very dangerous and deliberately targeted flirtation
with the idea of political assassination. Even Mark Lawson, one of Freedland's colleagues at the Guardian , writes at the
end of his review of
the book: "Even committed Trump-haters may suffer struggles of conscience over what would count as a satisfactory resolution of the
plot." This is a book that, ultimately, get its "thrills" from the prospect of the murder of Donald Trump.
The mainstream publication and promotion of To Kill The President should be interpreted as a stark symbol of the degradation
and co-option of our cultural and political life by neurotic, twisted, and hateful elements within our gates.
There was a time when Jonathan Freedland might have been considered an embarrassment to The Guardian but nowadays The Guardian
has itself become an embarrassment to Fish and Chip wrappers.
Allow me to kickstart this as a JKF thread. From my blog:
Apr 6, 2014 – More Proof
I've never spent much time on the JFK assassination since the proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming. If you want more,
watch this short video of JFK's Secret Service team being ordered off his limo shortly before he was shot.
And this allows me to link the most interesting video on youtube. Did James Files kill JFK? From my blog:
Jul 10, 2016 – James Files Killed JFK?
Youtube has amazing stuff, like James Files explaining how he killed JFK. This is a long interview but very detailed and believable.
The first question that arises is why this guy finally talked. This is answered in this short video that you should watch first.
James Files may be phony, but he is a former CIA/US Army Special Ops guy, a known gangster, and if he is a fraud, he is first
rate actor with great knowledge about the underworld who spent years preparing for this interview. I'm not sure what to think
about his story, but he is an interesting and likable guy!
There are websites that attempt to dismiss Files, and even one dedicated to discrediting him: James Files Fraud. But one must
ask who has the time and motivation to devote a website just to counter a youtube interview? Our CIA has thousands of people employed
in counter-intelligence. They have the time, resources and media contacts to refute "conspiracy theorists" like 9-11 and JFK.
This includes full time "floggers" commenting on websites and maintaining the "truth" at Wikipedia.
The Files interview is very interesting and I highly recommend watching it all, before it disappears. I recall watching a youtube
interview with his prison warden that has disappeared. The warden summoned Files to his office to find out why he refused to see
prominent visitors. He became convinced of Files' detailed account of shooting JFK, and was angered to learn that FBI agents had
managed to interview Files in his prison without his knowledge.
Just like retired boxer Mike Tyson was a sort of poster boy for racism, Freedland is sort of a poster boy for anti-Semitism.
He gives Nazi sympathisers the chance to say that perhaps the fuhrer wasn't totally wrong.
Revealing, Jonathan Freedland supports strict Israeli immigration laws which specify JEWS ONLY, while he demands massive 3rd
world immigration into the US & Europe.
"Trump's 'crimes,' according to Freedland, have included the White House statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did
not mention Jews or antisemitism."
Jonathan Freedland is the very essence of those that promote fraud for profit.
Freedland's opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted
merely in generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest. Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive
to Jewish social and political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for the Jewish Chronicle.
The above article can usefully be read in conjunction with the following Occidental Observer piece published on Unz.com a couple
of months ago, in the runup to the recent General Election:
They did it to W as well look at it as putting the R in taRget, because there are rarely Ds in their sites in any sales volume
or venue or media that matters.
Freedland has written endlessly about how Israel needs to be supported as an independent homeland for the Jewish people. You
can't even buy land if you are not Jewish in Israel.
But in the UK, he regards the independence arising from Brexit, and any lessening of immigration, as complete disasters. What
would he feel if only Christians could be citizens and buy land in the UK?
@NoseytheDuke
True. Guardian has become the lowest of the presstitutes.
As for the ethnicity-minding Jonathan Freedland, "a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse
of the British people in their own homeland as "a kind of triumph," it should be stickered to him every day that the supposedly
super-moral state of Israel has not taken a single Syrian refugee fleeing the death and destruction of the ziocons' design. "
every country in the region and many nations around the world have hosted Syrian refugees Except Israel. Even a symbolic government
proposal to host 100 Syrian orphans was eventually dropped."
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/26/fear-and-trepidation-in-tel-aviv-is-israel-losing-the-syria-war/
How have many Syrian Anne Franks have been refused to come to Israel by the Israeli supremacists or were murdered by the Israel-friendly
"moderate fighters" of ISIS/Al Qaeda variety?
"Since the start of the conflict, Israel bombed targets in Syria as it saw fit, and casually spoke of maintaining regular contacts
with certain opposition groups. On June 18, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been giving "secret aid" to Syrian
rebels, in the form of "cash and humanitarian aid."
@Ludwig
Watzal Yeah a "self-fulfilling prophecy" with a big push from outside forces . like relentless never-ending propaganda from
slimeballs like Freedland. That was the author's point.
The simple, direct yet elegant style of Mr. Joyce should be studied by a few more Unz commenters.
The Guardian is the disgusting institution, it runs on a massive bequest.
One can be sure that some Soros foundation will step in when it is running out. They are sharing common goals.
Unbelievably, they had two articles of interest last week, one by the vain Hadley Freeman, an interview with her co-ethnics
or co-religionists, depending on the day, it is seeming, with the Goldman family, of the other victim of wrongful death at the
hands of OJ. I would recommending it for your reading. I am sure that it is easy to find. I think that the Goldman family is making
big profits from OJ, but he was a creep and the cause of two wrongful deaths, so am thinking he is deserving it.
The other was about the experience of Yazidi women under IS. Full of the occasional sentence about how bad the Syrian govt.
and Assad are, which I see is a lie, I have read real testimonials from real British people, not wealthy, of how kind Assad was
in his opthalmolagy practice.
That was also worth reading, despite the clear propaganda parts. I am forgetting the name of the writer.
Really, the Guardian is typified by its pnrtrait photos of the writers. Freedland is one of the worst, in the sense
of false consciousness.
Still, almost all of them are photographed for their portrait photos, side-on, and sneering at the reader over the shoulder,
seems to being their house style.
I used to comment there at times (only a very few mths), different u-name to here, even got an editor's pick once, on worker's
rights.
Their Comment is Free has the stench of somethimg out of Orwell's 1984, far from free, more mild than some of my posts here,
were there, they are such hypocrites and liars, disallow things for nothing. CiF? GTFO!
Never formally banned, but never to returning. I still reading at times with great cynicism, but they are the crap.
For the lighter touch, not being a U.S.A. person, never knew much abt. American football until much later, but saw OJ in
Capricorn One as a child, so he is having some connection with 'Moon landings were the fake' conspiracy theories. Amusing
to me.
Mr. Joyce, thank you for interesting writing, I am reading it at your main site at times, too.
@jilles
dykstra I suppose the Guardian changed after Soros bought it .
I don't believe that's actually correct. But until your post I wasn't aware that there was any connection, however murky, between
the Guardian and Soros. The best I can find is the following, can you suggest anything more definitive?
Friedland, the author of the phantasy fiction in which President Trump gets killed, is a typical specimen of the "neurotic,
twisted, and hateful elements within our gates".
What exactly the multi-culti, LGBTQ, identity-obsessed, ultra liberals have against Trump beats me just as much as a three-legged
transgender alien might. A psychotic one can understand; a deluded soul one can pity or ignore; a fanatic of the traditional right/left
variety one can plan to deal with; but how on earth does one come to terms with the nominally sane but dangerously fanatical no-holds-barred
warriors from the loony left who are prepared to destroy all and everything? Intellectual battle would be about as useful as reasoning
with a psychotic, and physical battle with pansies is not an enticing prospect either. Political debates and re-elections would
also not resolve the matter with people who have no respect for any facts, laws, or systems other than their own. Perhaps the
only solution might be to cast them off to outer space to colonize their own planet, per Stephen Hawking's prescription for the
human race.
Seriously, the degree of seething hate, lying, hypocrisy, and fanaticism we see in the new breed of self-proclaimed "progressives"
is cause for serious worry. I despair and beg keener minds to propose solutions.
Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their
own homeland as "a kind of triumph," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks
on the Trump presidency. His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian,
How many "British people" have requested, or demanded, his demotion from his job place at the Guardian?
The fewer they have been, the righter has he been in behaving and writing the way he has.It is happens over a non-brief time
span, it means that it works. If it works, it's right.
Same as for the "neurotic". What is insanity? Only what is disliked by the crowd, or those with power. It's not this journalist's
case (or he would have lost his job), so "neurotic" doesn't apply to him.
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded." ..."
"... That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis ..."
"... Lastly, I couldn't figure out why Sen Warner suggested on a Sunday morning show awhile back that Zero 'choked' that is until I read the recent article by Time magazine describing the 19-Page DHS Plan to post national guardsmen at polling sites throughout the USA. It's startling to learn all of this after the fact, to say the least. But know the D's had a plan for election day, of course, first having to sell the narrative about a Russian cyber attack, but the Secretary's of State appeared to have stopped that project in its tracks...hence, Warner's 'choked' comment. ..."
karlof1 @35 - Thanks for the link to Mercouris' article. What he is realizing is what many
have been alluding to for quite some time.
"
If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it
correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than
this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which
sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded."
"
That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the
political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis
."
The U.S. government is in a 'profound crisis.'
It is impossible to forget that Hillary was the anointed one to follow zero. The moment
the numbers came in on the eve of the election showing Trump beat the 'chosen' one was the
moment the United States government entered the crisis.
What little we are slowly learning is that Zero politicized every department charged with
conducting the affairs on behalf of the people. What we learned shortly after Trump took
office from an investigation conducted by Sen Grassley of the Sen Judiciary committee was the
tip of the iceberg, that was all of the financial settlements from the banking industry
following the 2008 financial meltdown went into a DOJ slush fund that was then dispersed to
support groups like Black Lives Matter, La Raza and many, many more. Sessions ended those
funds from being handed out within the first couple of month's of his taking office.
It was little reported. But think about the millions upon millions in those settlements.
As well, I'd be remiss not to make note, but as part of the numerous settlements, DOJ would
suggest, as part of the deal, that the bank or business settling make a 'tax deductible'
donation to organizations of the DOJ's choosing. This was once the Chicago way of doing
business, maybe it still is.
Had the 'anointed' one won trust these groups, good or bad, would have only grown and
continued their disruptive practices on the streets of anywhere USA. Had that continued
cities like Baltimore, Chicago, NYC, etc would have been begging for federal help to cease
such disruption aka Martial Law.
I could go on and on about the many projects/programs Zero put in place only to have the
anointed one to carry them through to fruition. All such programs ended on the eve of the
election.
Also take notice that there has not been a horrific shooting since at least October, maybe
even September, here in the U.S. One might want to ask why?
Lastly, I couldn't figure out why Sen Warner suggested on a Sunday morning show awhile
back that Zero 'choked' that is until I read the recent article by Time magazine describing
the 19-Page DHS Plan to post national guardsmen at polling sites throughout the USA. It's
startling to learn all of this after the fact, to say the least. But know the D's had a plan
for election day, of course, first having to sell the narrative about a Russian cyber attack,
but the Secretary's of State appeared to have stopped that project in its tracks...hence,
Warner's 'choked' comment.
Oh, there was a plan in place alright, and we're only at the beginning of the curtain
being pulled back. In the meantime those radical leaders in congress who hide behind the D or
R label are more than happy to grind the people's business to a complete halt.
Wally, yer one of the good guys, and your faith in Trump has aspects of charm, but the neocons have numerous ways to make
him cave.
He could only be a dictator in the style you're suggesting if he had the backing of the military and or the big money crowd
and I just don't see it. His ability to "do good" for the American masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors,
unfortunately.
The system was designed to protect the interests of the most powerful money bag crowd while convincing the masses that whatever
is good for GM is good for the USA, so to speak.
@jacques sheete Wally, yer one of the good guys, and your faith in Trump has aspects of charm,
but the neocons have numerous ways to make him cave.
He could only be a dictator in the style you're suggesting if he had the backing of the military
and or the big money crowd and I just don't see it. His ability to "do good" for the American
masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors, unfortunately.
The system was designed to protect the interests of the most powerful money bag crowd while
convincing the masses that whatever is good for GM is good for the USA, so to speak. During the
campaign, I assumed Trump had a lot more behind him than he appears to have after the inauguration.
He needed to have a few key power centres four-square behind him, and to bring a dozen bloody-minded
executive operators with well-considered plans to "hoist the black flag and start cutting throats"
at key Departments and Agencies.
So far, it appears that instead of Seven Samurai, he brought the Seven Dwarfs. Our remaining
hope is that it's all part of a "clever plan", but that hope is just a hope
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise
from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably,
perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now on
full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
@Erebus During the campaign, I assumed Trump had a lot more behind him than he appears to
have after the inauguration. He needed to have a few key power centres four-square behind him,
and to bring a dozen bloody-minded executive operators with well-considered plans to "hoist the
black flag and start cutting throats" at key Departments and Agencies.
So far, it appears that instead of Seven Samurai, he brought the Seven Dwarfs. Our remaining
hope is that it's all part of a "clever plan", but that hope is just a hope...
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise
from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably,
perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now on
full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to
rise from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably,
perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now
on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
You nailed it. Even if they do eventually succeed in foiling Trump, things will never be the
same again. The whole world is watching the circus in Washington, and so Washington's brand ('democracy')
is now shot. 2016 was indeed an annus mirabilis!
...It is more than 200 kilometres from the current Russian frontier with Belarus and the
historical border with the territory which for a thousand years has been occupied by
Lithuanian, Polish, German and Russian imperial as well as Soviet forces. Kushner's
grandparents
actually came from Navahrudak
(Навагрудак), spelled in Russian as
Новогрудок (Novogrudok). The
meaning of the word, which was first used for the place in the 11
th
century, is
"new little town". When the Germans arrived in July 1941, there were 20,000 residents, 10,000
of whom, including the Kushners, were Jewish. The Kushners escaped; the majority who didn't
were killed. Kushner reveals he doesn't know. His, and everyone else's mistake, is 834
kilometres off the mark.
...But Kushner admits that during the campaign he "had incoming [sic] contacts with people
from approximately 15 countries." He also had "hundreds" of "calls, letters and emails from
people outside the United States." He says he asked Henry Kissinger for "advice on policy for
the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what
messaging would resonate." He says he spoke once for "less than a minute" with Russian
Ambassador Sergei Kislyak at an April 2016 Trump campaign speech in Washington, when the
Russian was accompanied by three other foreign ambassadors; Kushner doesn't name them.
He denies any record of receiving or remembering two reported telephone calls with Kislyak
between April and November, and had forgotten his name when, on November 9, an official
congratulatory note arrived for Trump from President Vladimir Putin. From November 9 to January
20, Kushner says he received "over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries They
included meetings with individuals such as Jordan's King Abdullah II, Israel's Prime Bibi
Netanyahu, Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more."
A neophyte in foreign affairs as Kushner confesses himself to be, he doesn't reveal that
Videgaray and he set up candidate Trump's visit to Mexico City to meet the Mexican President on
August 31. The Mexican reaction to that was extremely hostile. Videgaray was forced to resign
as finance minister on September 7, but promoted to foreign minister on January 4. Videgaray
might be charged with colluding with the Americans to advance himself, with Kushner as
co-conspirator, but no senator on the Intelligence Committee is reported to have asked Kushner
about that.
Kushner may not know the nicknames of Videgaray or King Abdullah, but he certainly refers to
the Israeli prime minister as Bibi, an appellation well-known to Israelis and Jews worldwide.
His official name is Benjamin, and there is ample evidence that Kushner has been familiar with
Netanyahu for many years. Kushner's father is also widely reported in Israel as Netanyahu's
personal friend. Kushner's slip in yesterday's evidence was to reveal just how familiar he is
with that foreign official, who met with Trump and Kushner for a campaign appearance in Israel
in June, five months before Election Day.
The special relationship between Israel and the US cannot be collusion – that's a rule
of US politics. The rule wasn't quite so fixed in the 1980s when the FBI caught US officials at
spying, stealing and smuggling on behalf of Israel, and sent one of them to prison;
click for
details
Nor can God and the Orthodox Jewish group known as Chabad-Lubavitch be reported as colluding
in Trump's victory, despite the evidence that Kushner and his wife Ivanka prayed for it at a
Lubavitcher shrine on the weekend before the poll.
The Israeli and Jewish community media
also
claim
the possibility that Kushner's pilgrimage reminded God to intervene when there was a
suspected assassination attempt against Trump in Arizona at the same time.
The inadvertence of these slips in Kushner's statement reinforces his claim that he knows
the difference between collusion with Russians and special relationships with Mexican, Israeli
and Lubavitcher friends. The US press and the US appear convinced of the same thing.
... ... ...
Simes (Дмитрий
Саймс), son of Jewish dissidents
expelled
from the Soviet Union to the US in 1978, is the
Uriah Heep
of Russian-American advisors,
ingratiating themselves to both sides and making a living out of obsequious intermediation. He
was Richard Nixon's factotum when the disgraced president visited Moscow. Nixon died in 1994
leaving Simes his think-tank as an inheritance. Its motto is "America's Voice for Strategic
Realism". Kissinger is the honorary
chairman
, succeeding the American
International Group (AIG) fraudster Hank Greenberg.
Helmer provides a wealth of background about people and their role, institutions and
practices. It is the kind of information that puts things in quite a different light -- and it
turns out to be intriguing.
Apparently, the Kremlin really wanted to get in touch with Trump -- and tried it in a
serious way (gifts that should have been laden with personal symbolism for Kushner, sending
that high-powered Gorkov banker, letting the ambassador pester Kushner for meetings). All for
naught, due to spectacularly poor assessment of the other party by the Russians, and a
clueless Trump team (with Kushner supremely ignorant of his supposedly cherished
Eastern-European Jewish heritage).
The picture of that milieu full of go-betweens, cats' paws, and assorted parasites is not
pretty. Contrarily to the often agape descriptions of "Putin's regime", the Russians appear
to have been rather incompetent in that specific occurrence.
"Apparently, the Kremlin really wanted to get in touch with Trump -- and tried it in a
serious way" – Well, I think the dirt on offer was of the wrong kind, no?
Funny you got here first "Visitor".
Somebody is always first by definition. There was always a mad rush to be the "Me first
commenter number One!" over at James Klunster's blog, for example.
"reveals just how ignorant Kushner, his legal and other advisors are of Russia"
It is a big deal that Kushner didn't know the proper spelling of the town his grandparents
came from? Heck, I don't even know the name of the town my grandparents came from –
much less how to spell it.
Interesting point on Mexico and Israel / collusion
For better or worse I think there are more US citizens who know who Bibi is and not many
who know the nickname of the King of Jordan.
1. I've come across the nickname Bibi so many times and I am only a casual reader of
mainstream news.
Perhaps it is that many people in the mainstream media who are 'personal friends' of
Bibi.
2. You know your grandparents home town either when they sat down with you and showed it
to you on a map with its English spelling on an American map, or an old map with unknown
words on it (a Belarussian one maybe), or they talked about it many times, so that you know,
but only know how to say it (however imperfectly). Then, when it came for you to write it
down the first time (or may not have to the first time, but the first time someone more
familiar with the area reads it), you didn't get the spelling exactly right, and even
confused it with any town.
I think the stupidity is anyone on the left buying into this fake McCarthyite Russia scare -- just because a racketeering war criminal lost the election. For one, Hillary took naked
bribes from Russia. As Secretary of State, Hillary received millions in bribes to approve the
transfer of 20% of our uranium assets to Russia:
And the Podesta Group, founded by John Podesta, took money from Russia's largest bank,
Sherbank, just last year, to lobby for a lessening of sanctions:
and
"Finally, the idea that the DNC was hacked by Russia is so flimsy "
regardless of the fact that all major USA intelligence services have said Russia did hack
DNC.
google "Russia hacked DNC".
I think that the average American reading this article would half-way through roll their
eyes and say this is so micro nit-picky that there is no there there.
No kidding. My summary of the first objection: "Kushner would certainly known that his
grandfather was from Novafreakingrad, Ukraine, not Novafrakingrad, Russia if the idiot hadn't
realized he was reading the wrong cyrillic alphabet."
Or something like that. I'm usually interested in trivia, but this strained my limit to
the breaking point. Like Bill Smith said in his comment above, most of us would be hard
pressed to know what country our forbears came from, let alone what city. I think if this is
the dumbest thing Kushner writes or says while he's working for the White House, he'll be the
best Director of the Office of American Innovation evah – even if every other President
had at least two of them.
God forbid that we talk to the Russians! Oh my. Far better to start a nuclear war that
ultimately involves all of the nuclear powers, even the North Koreans. Then we can solve
climate change by gifting the planet back to the extremophiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile
Shake and bake. A billion years from now, Earth will be covered with multitudinous
expressions of life.
Millions of Americans colluded with the Russians and elected DJ Trump. IMO, largely
because they are sick of this constant war-mongering. The second World War only lasted for 5
years!
Military industrial complex needs your money my friend. Nothing personal. This is strictly
business :-)
"Millions of Americans colluded with the Russians and elected DJ Trump. IMO, largely
because they are sick of this constant war-mongering. The second World War only lasted for 5
years!"
The last thing MIC cares is what millions of Americans, who elected Trump, want.
If the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, ostensibly on a fact
finding mission re the Trump administration's alleged collusion with Russian government
officials and business people, take their assignment seriously they could use Helmer's brisk,
no-nonsense just the facts ma'am approach as a template for their proceedings. The key word
being "if"
Reading the American and European press it's striking how the reporting on countries in
the 'axis of MIC designated evildoers' is almost always grossly, or hilariously, depending on
your disposition, reductionist. While Western countries have a complex and multilayered
system of government administration the "evil" countries are ruled by bad dudes with one name
(North Korea's Kim Jong-un excepted) – Putin, Assad, Saddam, Gadaffi – who have
absolute control over civilians military alike. It really is a South Parkesque view of the
world. One can imagine a Putin or Assad grimly overseeing a trembling clerk issuing licenses
at a provincial DMV, because Leader Knows Best of course.
Back in the real world this cartoonish dumbing down means every action – real,
alleged or made up – the West doesn't like is traced back to The Leader. If a military
unit goes nuts and slaughters a bunch of non-combatants , a nasty but not uncommon occurrence
in wartime, it must be because The Leader ordered it. The Syrian Arab Army, to name one
example, becomes "Assad's Army" and is composed of "soldiers loyal to Bashar al-Assad". The
media would
never
talk about a Western, or "allied" army like this.
In the transcript Helmer cites, Gorkov's gifts to Kushner, something that might only be an
innocent overlooking of protocol, can easily be spun in such a way that it becomes part of
that evil rascal Putin's ploy to influence an American president. That's why these committees
and hearings are a joke that belong in a low-budget sequel to Dr. Strangelove. Every person
with a functioning brain knows there is a double-standard at play here. Even the maniacal
partisan nutjobs agitating for Cold War 2.0 would have to admit this if logic and reason
still have any meaning.
Demonization of Putin is very profitable. This new round of McCarthyism enforced on the
country proved to be the strategy chosen by neoliberal elite to return Dems to power and
suppress populists within the party. Smash critique of neoliberalism equating them with
Russian agents, who are trying to undermine the state.
There were rumors that original McCarthyism campaign partially was designed to suppress
"leaks" about export of nazy scientist and spies in the USA after WWII that Communists and
Trotskyites tried to expose.
Talk about a nothing burger about Kushner and Russia other than his aficionado to be
Bibi's US puppet-in-law. If Trump has any Russian connections its through his first wife
Ivana Trump. According to wikipedia, Ivana Trump nee Zelníčková was born
February 20, 1949 in the Moravian town of Zlín, Czechoslovakia. From 1948 to 1990,
Czechoslovakia was part of the Soviet bloc. Donald Jr speaks fluent Czech.
Now the Clintons Russian connection of selling and buying 'Merica
uranium/speechifer/foundation grab bag of goodies makes the Trump Russian investigation look
like its run by a whole buncha nut job congress critters who fell off the turnip truck conned
into playing a shell game.
"... Harris also has ties to billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros, who was one of the two owners of OneWest Bank at the time. Coincidentally, before Harris passed on the opportunity to file action against OneWest Bank, Soros was pouring money into California criminal policy initiatives that Harris was pushing. ..."
"... TheLos Angeles Times ..."
"... Billionaire George Soros held a closed door conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to "take back power" and was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. ..."
"... On the weekend of Trump's inauguration, David Brock hosted a retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to "kick Donald Trump's a--." ..."
Harris' meetings with Clinton's donors signal that they are rallying behind her as the
2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Harris has emerged as a leading figure in the Trump
Resistance;
Politico
reported
that
the hearings regarding Trump's connections to Russia have enabled the
Democratic
Party
to frame her as Trump's most aggressive critic. In response to one of the
hearings she was involved in, she
launched
the slogan "courage not courtesy." However, despite this catchy slogan,
Harris has historically lacked the courage to hold her donors accountable when they have
broken the law.
The nomination of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin provoked criticisms over his tenure
as CEO of OneWest Bank. In 2013, California prosecutors claimed to have discovered over
1,000 foreclosure law violations, but the California Attorney General's office failed to
file any action against the bank. At the time, Kamala Harris was California's attorney
general. Many questioned why Harris didn't take any action given the evidence her office
uncovered.
"We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it's a decision my office
made," Harris
told
The
Hill
. "We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the
facts lead us."
Harris' vague defense is insufficient. The Democratic Party has branded her as a leader
of the Trump Resistance without addressing why Harris avoided a criminal investigation that
involved donors to her campaign.
In 2011, Mnuchin's wife at the time, Heather Mnuchin,
gave
$8,750
to Harris' 2011 campaign. OneWest Bank
donated
$6,500 to Harris' 2011 election. Heather Mnuchin also
donated
$850 to Harris' 2014 election for California attorney general.
In 2014, the Center for American Progress
graded
California's campaign donor recusal laws a "C." The state's lax laws allowed Harris to
decide not to recuse herself from deciding whether or not to prosecute OneWest Bank.
Harris also has ties to billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros, who was one of
the two owners of OneWest Bank at the time. Coincidentally, before Harris passed on the
opportunity to file action against OneWest Bank, Soros was pouring money into California
criminal policy initiatives that Harris was pushing.
In 2011, Harris' former aide Lenore Anderson was
hired
as
campaign manager for Californians for Safety and Justice, which was financed by Soros' Open
Society Foundations. In 2014,
TheLos Angeles Times reported, "The organization
operates under the umbrella of a San Francisco-based nonprofit clearinghouse, which
effectively shields its donor list and financial operations from public view." The report
cited
that since 2012 Soros had led a four-year, $16 million campaign to change
California criminal policy, which Harris was deeply involved in as California attorney
general. Lenore Anderson also
led
Vote
Safe, another Soros' funded organization.
In 2014, Soros and hedge fund billionaire John Paulson
sold
OneWest
for $3.4 billion. In 2015, Soros donated the
maximum amount
to Harris' Senate campaign. Also in 2015, Harris
spoke
at
Soros' 2020 Vision Conference in San Francisco with House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi and at
Soros' Democracy Alliance Conference
.
This background information on Harris' relationship to her donors provides context as to
why the
Democratic
establishment
is rallying behind her. However, any politician that doesn't hold
corporate and special interests accountable only results in more corruption.
Since Hillary Clinton's unexpected loss to
Donald
Trump , her donors have strategized with Democratic leadership about how to revive the
failing party.
Billionaire George Soros
held a closed door
conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to "take back power" and
was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
On the weekend of Trump's inauguration,
David Brock
hosted a
retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to "kick Donald Trump's
a--."
On July 15, Page Sixreported that Sen. Kamala Harris, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, met
with top Clinton donors in the Hamptons.
Many figures in Clinton's inner circle attended,
including Clinton's 2008 Campaign National Finance co-Chair Michael Kempner, donors Dennis Mehiel and Steven Gambrel, and Democratic National Committeeman Robert Zimmerman. Harris also
attended a separate luncheon
hosted by one of Clinton's top lobbyist bundlers, Liz Robbins.
And used this possibility again to advertize his hypothesis that Russians hacked the elections... Should not be a rule for former
CIA directors to keep mouth shut ?
Notable quotes:
"... And Brennan is not exactly a tabula rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative that Brennan himself has helped to create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services to dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided by several European intelligence services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama. ..."
I was particularly bemused by the
comment
by former CIA Chief John Brennan who denounced Trump's performance during the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg over the lack of
a hard line against Putin and his failure to support the "word of the U.S. intelligence community" about Russian interference in
the recent election. In an interview Brennan complained "He said it's an honor to meet President Putin. An honor to meet the individual
who carried out the assault against our election? To me, it was a dishonorable thing to say."
Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter
has demonstrated how the "word" of U.S. intel is not exactly what it might seem to be. And Brennan is not exactly a tabula
rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative
that Brennan himself has helped to create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services
to dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided by several European intelligence
services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously
slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama.
And along the way I have been assiduously trying to figure out the meaning of last week's reports regarding the contacts of Trump
Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with two alleged Russian agents while reportedly seeking the dirt on Hillary.
As it turns out, there
may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced,
and there may have been a bit more about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.
Barring any new revelations backed up by actual facts revealing that something substantive like a quid pro quo actually took place,
the whole affair appears to be yet another example of a politically inspired fishing expedition. This observation is not necessarily
naivete on my part nor a denial that it all might have been an intelligence operation, but it is an acceptance of the fact that probing
and maneuvering is all part and parcel of what intelligence agencies do when they are dealing with adversaries and very often even
with friends. It does not necessarily imply that Moscow was seeking to overthrow American democracy even if it was trying to advance
its own interests.
JohnHelmer.net:
THE IMPROPER ASSOCIATION (MAYBE CRIME) OF VICTOR PINCHUK WITH HILLARY,
BILL AND CHELSEA CLINTON, COVERED UP BY THE US MEDIA, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND THE
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
The case of the $13 million paid to the Clinton family by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor
Pinchuk, in exchange for personal favours and escalation of the war against Russia, was
reported in detail throughout 2014. Click to read the opener, and more.
Early this month there has been fresh investigation of Pinchuk's money links with the
Clintons, owing to the start of Ukrainian government inquiries into the theft of billions of
dollars of International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans to Ukraine – money then transferred
to Ukrainian commercial banks including Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr bank, and then loaned to
offshore entities controlled by Pinchuk but apparently not repaid. Theft of the IMF money was
first reported here in connection with Igor Kolomoisky's operation of Privat Bank
Any person who sites neocons like Mike Morell is very suspicious, to say the least. Pat
Buchanan is no exception, for now on...
Notable quotes:
"... Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn. ..."
"... Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality. ..."
"... journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope. ..."
"... Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic? ..."
"... People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for. ..."
"... Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. ..."
"... The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. ..."
"... Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President), imo. ..."
"... He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper and Mika etc etc etc ..."
For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump's
campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was
"no." As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, "On the question of the Trump campaign
conspiring with the Russians there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little
campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."
Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald
Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians -- in anticipation of promised dirt
on Hillary Clinton's campaign. While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had long
insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full
Pinocchio for four days.
And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on
their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they
want it -- Russiagate.
This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of
the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.
Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And
mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as
possible from their agenda -- breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.
Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S.
government designed to damage this president.
Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting
between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the
firing of Flynn.
An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that
Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to
explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled
Israeli intelligence sources and methods.
Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only
violations of the leaker's solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law. Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek.
First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from
exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.
The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly. Consider the original Russiagate offense. Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this
"Tinker to Evers to Chance" double-play combination?
The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an "act of war" against "our
democracy," the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what
Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders. If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they
publish the fruits of that crime? Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic
political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page
1?
Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge
that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic
disloyalty and criminality.
Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to
fence them once stolen and repainted.
Some
journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of
their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the
real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope.
And thus does democracy die in darkness.
Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government
who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs
not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?
Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members
of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?
Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.
People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal.
Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell
the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald
Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly
undermining your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please
write this out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe
then it will sink in.
There is nothing there. Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever. Trump can do other things. People will lose interest in this. This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup. There's nothing remotely like this here.
1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with
it.
2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on
nothing.
Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be
distracted by Trump does something real. Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like
dejavu to him. Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the
control of globalists.
But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but
unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.
Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the
integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or
deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's.
"Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks."
What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually
lying creeps?
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
No it's not.
The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period
where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an
unsuitable one slip past them.
This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the
trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of
worse barbarians.
Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and
their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President),
imo.
There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he
covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election"
black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest
credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true
criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to
influence US politics.
Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?
Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's
no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives
with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in
hacking.
Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.
Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded
zealots.
If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and
should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding
and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's)
elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics
by Israel in particular.
If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about
foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious
"influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically
including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.
That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about
foreign influence.
@NoseytheDuke
Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt
Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)
Yipes -- What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for
Alzheimers ?
He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that
the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper
and Mika etc etc etc
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
It already didn't end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse.
At this stage I don's see any "better" scenarios. The truth has been revealed.
The strenuous effort of "Resistance" passengers in the Limousine-of-State to shove Donald
Trump out of the driver's seat continues into what would normally be the news-wasteland of
midsummer. Last week it was the smoking popgun of Trump Junior's meeting with a Russian lawyer
purported (by British music promoter Rob Goldstein) to be associated with the "Russian Crown
Prosecutor" (no such office in a country without a monarch).
The news caused the usual commotion among the very media mouthpieces who publish anti-Trump
allegations as a staple for their "Resistance" readerships. By the way, this blog might be
described as anti-Trump, too, in the sense that I did not vote for him and regularly inveigh
against his antics as President - but neither is Clusterfuck Nation a friend of the
Hillary-haunted Dem-Prog "Resistance," in case there's any confusion about where we stand. If
anything, we oppose the entirety of the current political regime in our nation's capital, the
matrix of rackets that is driving the aforementioned Limousine-of-State off the cliff of
economic collapse. Just sayin'.
"Resistance" law professors, such as Lawrence Tribe at Harvard, were quick to holler
"treason" over Junior's meet-up with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Russian-American
lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin. Well, first of all, and not to put too fine a point on it, don't you
have to be at war with another nation to regard any kind of consort as "treason?" Last time I
checked, we were not at war with Russia - though it sure seems like persons and parties inside
the Beltway would dearly like to make that happen. You can't call it espionage either, of
course, because that would purport the giving of secret information, not the receiving of
political gossip.
Remember, the "Resistance" is not going for impeachment, but rather Section 4 of the 25
th
Amendment. That legal nicety makes for a very neat-and-clean surgical removal of
a whack-job president, without all the cumbrous evidentiary baggage and pain-in-ass due process
required by impeachment. All it requires is a consensus among a very small number of high
officials, who then send a note to the leaders in both houses of congress stating that said
whack-job president is a menace to the polity -- and out he goes, snippety-snip like a
colorectal polyp, into the hazardous waste bag of history. And you're left with a nice clean
asshole, namely Vice President Mike Pence.
Insofar as Pence appears to be a kind of booby-prize for the "Resistance," that fateful
reach for the 25
th
Amendment hasn't happened quite yet. It is hoped, I'm sure, that
the incessant piling on of new allegations about "collusion" with the Russians will get the
25thers over the finish line and into the longed-for end zone dance.
More interestingly, though, the meme that has led people to believe that any contact between
Russians and Americans is ipso facto nefarious vectors into the very beating heart of the
"Resistance" itself: the Clintons.
How come the Clintons have not been asked to explain why -- as reported on The Hill blog -- Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars to give speech in Russia (surely he offered them
something of value in exchange, pending the sure thing Hillary inaugural) ...
or what about the $2.35 million "contribution" that the Clinton Foundation received after
Secretary of State Hillary allowed the Russians to buy a controlling stake in the Uranium One
company, which owns 20 percent of US uranium supplies, with mines and refineries in Wyoming,
Utah, and other states, as well as assets in Kazakhstan, the world's largest uranium
producer?
Incidentally, the Clinton Foundation did not "shut down," as erroneously reported early this
year. It was only its Global Initiative program that got shuttered. The $2.35 million is
probably still rattling around in the Clinton Foundation's bank account.
Don't you kind of wonder what they did with it? I hope Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller
wants to know.
Susan Rice has implicated herself (and by extension Obama) in a felony. Comey has lied
under oath and stolen government property. Lowrenta has commited obstruction of justice and
the world now knows that Natalia V was given "a special visa" by the State Department... in
June of 2016! ...in order to even be present at a meeting with Jr set up by an associate of
FusionGPS one Ron Goldstone in which, a "former Soviet counter-intelligence officer" was
present who also was allowed (even though the Alinsky press won't report it) to roam freely
around the Obama WH in a group tour...cuz... RUSSIAN SPIES! ...lol.
OBAMA White House played HOST to RUSSIAN associate of Russian Atty Natalia the same day as
the Trump Tower meeting June 9, 2016 - according to Obama's White House log. Natalia's
translator, Samochornov was a contractor with Obama's State Dept. Per FBI insider Obama
speaks Russian.
Yeah,you missed 'The Russians are coming the Russians are coming'24/7 7 days a week for 8
months now and counting,with no proof yet of any wrongdoing whatsoever nor any explanation in
concrete terms of exactly how those pesky Rooskies could possibly have 'meddled in our
elections' let alone any proof of same. No,just morning 'til night 'the russians are coming
the Russians are coming.The left has collectively lost its mind in a very public way.How any
sentient being could any longer pay them any mind is a mystery to me
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
They did not find anything yet, but they have money and will continue digging till the next Presidential
elections. This is just a witch hunt. If, for example members of Us congress are subjected to the same
level of scrutiny probably over 50% would be already charged for criminal activities ;-) Trump is still
standing... BTW it would be interesting where NEIL MacFARQUHAR got all this information. Were intelligences
agencies involved?
MOSCOW , Russian Island, near the port city of Vladivostok in the far east, was a decaying former
military base and home to a scattering of cattle when President Vladimir V. Putin suddenly envisioned
it as a $1.2 billion campus where he could welcome heads of state for an Asia-Pacific conference.
That sent Kremlin officials scrambling to find a developer to transform a site lacking fresh water,
a pier or roads. They rejected numerous bids before one of them took a flier on a man known mostly
for his glamorous shopping malls: Aras Agalarov of the Crocus Group.
A little more than three years later, in 2012, Mr. Putin opened the spectacular
Far Eastern Federal University , some
70 modern buildings built in a crescent overlooking the sparkling Pacific Ocean.
Not long after, Mr. Putin pinned a blue-ribboned state medal, the Order of Honor, on Mr. Agalarov's
chest at a dazzling Kremlin ceremony. Soon, a string of demanding, more prominent projects followed:
a stretch of superhighway ringing Moscow; two troubled stadiums for the 2018 World Cup, including
one in a Baltic swamp.
Mr. Agalarov, 61, also worked on a project with a future president, Donald J. Trump. Last week,
the Russian developer and his crooner son and heir, Emin, were thrust into the swirl of speculation
about whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election.
Their names popped up in emails about arranging a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian
lawyer who claimed to have incriminating information about Hillary Clinton, but the president and
his son have both insisted that nothing of value was provided.
"This is obviously very high-level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's
support for Mr. Trump , helped along by Aras and Emin," wrote Rob Goldstone, a music producer and
publicist working for Emin.
While there is no indication beyond what was said in the emails that the Agalarovs were serving
as a conduit between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, wealthy and well-connected businessmen are
often called on to do the bidding of the Russian government.
Kremlin analysts stress that its red, crenelated walls conceal not a well-oiled machine but a
hornet's nest of interests and influences competing to dominate an Erector Set of ad hoc policies
and sudden opportunities, many of them highly lucrative.
When it comes to exploiting those opportunities, the Kremlin often ignores its own bureaucrats,
diplomats and other agents in favor of someone it thinks will get the job done , a charmed group
whose members rise and fall in status along with their usefulness to Mr. Putin and his top aides.
In that context, analysts find it entirely plausible that the Kremlin would tap Mr. Agalarov,
a construction tycoon with a web of contacts to Mr. Trump, as a way to pass information to the Trump
presidential campaign.
"In a sense, almost no one is a direct agent of the Kremlin, but almost anyone can become one
if the need arises," said Ekaterina Schulmann, a political scientist at the Russian Presidential
Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
Aleksei A. Navalny, the leading opposition figure in Russia and an anticorruption campaigner,
says he has no doubt that the Agalarovs would do the bidding of the Kremlin if asked.
In a blog post, Mr. Navalny refers to Yuri Chaika, the Russian state prosecutor , a position equivalent
to the United States attorney general , whom Mr. Goldstone identified in his emails as the source
of the information on offer at the Trump Tower meeting. Mr. Chaika, a staunch Putin loyalist, has
been in that position since 2006.
In the view of Mr. Navalny, a bitter opponent of Mr. Putin, it makes perfect sense that information
passed from the Kremlin through Mr. Chaika and Mr. Agalarov to Mr. Trump, as the security services
could easily have used such a trusted channel to reach out to the Trump campaign.
That is no more than informed speculation, yet there are deep connections among the men. After
Mr. Navalny released a documentary in 2015 accusing Mr. Chaika of corruption, for example, Mr. Agalarov
rose to his defense. Writing in the newspaper Kommersant, he said the film mixed fact and fiction
and echoed the work of Joseph Goebbels, the chief Nazi propagandist.
Natalia Veselnitskaya , the lawyer who met with the younger Mr. Trump, and her former husband
both worked in the prosecutor's office of the Moscow region, the district surrounding the capital,
and would have been under Mr. Chaika's overall umbrella.
Ms. Veselnitskaya has done some legal work connected to real estate for Mr. Agalarov's company
in Russia, according to media interviews given by the family lawyer in the United States, Scott Balber.
Mr. Trump entered this circle with the 2013 Miss Universe contest, carried out with the help of
lower-level bureaucrats and Mr. Agalarov, who paid $20 million to bring the pageant to his family's
Moscow concert pavilion, Crocus City Hall.
It would be natural for the Kremlin, aware of that relationship, to reach down to that level to
try to get something done with the Trump campaign, analysts said.
"If you are a business person, you are supposed to do something that the Kremlin asks you; you
are otherwise free to pursue your own interests. That is how Russia works," said Mrs. Schulmann,
noting that most would be eager to respond to any such call as an expression of loyalty.
In this particular case, the Kremlin has denied any involvement, saying it was not in touch with
Mr. Agalarov and did not even know the lawyer, Ms. Veselnitskaya. It is unclear precisely what was
discussed at the meeting with members of the Trump team. Participants have said that it dealt largely
with an American law called the Magnitsky Act, which blacklists those suspected of human rights abuses
in Russia, and a ban on the adoption of Russian children, and that nothing of significance was given
to the campaign.
Mr. Agalarov, in a Russian radio interview, called the story around the meeting , that it was
about information damaging to Hillary Clinton , a "fabrication."
The Crocus Group did not respond to a request to interview Mr. Agalarov.
For Mr. Agalarov, the involvement in the Trump administration's Russia scandal is at best an unwelcome
diversion in a career of steady if not always spectacular success.
He was born in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, then part of the Soviet Union, where he studied
computer engineering and was a member of the Baku City Committee of the Communist Party.
He went to Moscow to study, and even before the collapse of the Soviet Union began trying to fill
pent-up Russian demand for Western goods, especially computers.
What started as a modest trading company grew into a business organizing trade fairs that eventually
mushroomed into the Crocus Group, a real estate empire that encompasses mammoth shopping malls, a
chain of hypermarkets, an exposition center, restaurants, luxury housing developments and other enterprises.
Forbes magazine puts Mr. Agalarov 51st on
its list of the richest Russians, with a fortune estimated at $1.7 billion.
"He is not the biggest retail guy, but Crocus City Mall was the first luxury mall to appear in
Moscow," said Darrell Stanaford, a 20-year veteran of the Russian real estate world as the former
managing director in Moscow for the CBRE Group, a Los Angeles-based commercial real estate firm.
"He likes the glitz. It is high-end luxury, so that is why he becomes such a good matchup for Trump."
Mr. Agalarov keeps a modest footprint on social media, mostly by standing next to his photogenic
son: on their luxury Moscow golf course development, for example, or
posing with Robert De Niro
at the opening of one of the two Nobu restaurants in Moscow where they are partners.
Mr. Trump pops up from time to time. On his Inauguration Day, both Agalarovs
posted old pictures
of themselves with him, along with effusive praise for their old friend.
Aside from the 2013 Miss Universe contest, it is not known what business ties, if any, the Agalarovs
have with Mr. Trump, or with any other American companies. They clearly have an affinity for the
United States, however, naming one chain of shopping malls "Vegas" and another luxury residential
complex "Manhattan."
In November 2013, after the buzz of the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow had subsided, Mr. Trump
met privately with a group of elite Russian businessmen, including the head of Russia's state-owned
Sberbank at one of the Nobu restaurants in Moscow.
The elder Mr. Agalarov had been talking with Mr. Trump about building a Trump Tower in Moscow
as part of a $3 billion real estate project involving hotels, a shopping center and office space.
Sberbank was ready to make it happen. About a week after the meeting, the bank announced a "strategic
cooperation agreement" with the Crocus Group to finance about 70 percent of the ambitious project,
including, potentially, a building bearing the Trump name.
"It was one of the 14 buildings that we planned to build here," Mr. Agalarov's son Emin said in
a March interview with Forbes, adding that if Mr. Trump "hadn't run for president, we would probably
be in the construction phase today."
The Sberbank financing , reported at the time as the biggest real estate development loan the
bank had made , was another measure of the Agalarovs' increasingly close connections to the centers
of power in Russia.
In another indication, the Crocus Group was written into a 2014 bilateral treaty with the government
of Kyrgyzstan to help that country integrate into Russia's regional alliance, the Eurasian Economic
Union.
In that deal, worth $127 million, the Crocus Group was designated the "single supplier" of services
to integrate the two countries' bureaucracies and reinforce the new customs common border, by, for
example, building new border posts.
By naming the company in an international treaty, the Russian government avoided opening the work
to competitive bidding, ensuring that the Crocus Group won the contract, Edil Baisalov, a former
Kyrgyz presidential chief of staff, said in a telephone interview.
In Kyrgyzstan, he said, the apparent giveaway to Kremlin-connected insiders became known as "Crocusgate."
Mr. Agalarov mentions occasionally how difficult it is to earn money on public works, telling
the newspaper Vedomosti in 2015 that he had to buy a larger Gulfstream jet to make the cross-continental
trek to Vladivostok to check on progress at the Far Eastern Federal University. On that project,
he said, he spent more than $100 million of his own money because the official plans skipped significant
costs like roads and landscaping. He won some of it back in court.
Statements about losing money are all part of the game, analysts said, noting that construction
costs on Russian infrastructure routinely run 30 percent higher than for comparable projects in Europe.
"It is showing the wounds that he got in the service of the motherland," said Ms. Schulmann, the
political scientist. "You see how indifferent I am to profit when I do a service for the Kremlin.
I have to make sacrifices."
Mr. Agalarov, however, was more candid than most when asked whether it is altruism that leads
him to respond when the Kremlin calls. In the interview with Vedomosti, he said, "There are things
that you cannot turn down."
"... "Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. " ..."
"... "It's been nearly a year since the FBI started an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Since then, the investigation has turned toward examining links between Russia and President Donald Trump's associates and members of
his campaign, and even possible obstruction of justice by Trump. ..."
"... The investigation has been the go-to news item and topic of many heated conversations since last July, at least in DC . But
outside of the nation's capital, many voters aren't as concerned about possible Trump ties to Russia. ..."
"... When I recently visited my hometown and one other small town in Michigan that went for Trump, I talked with residents about
the investigation. Nearly every single person I spoke with said the same thing: The media just needs to leave Trump alone, and the Russia
investigation is a distraction. ..."
"... "I'm tired of hearing about the Russia thing. Let it go and move on. The media is the one that's propagating it. They just
won't let it die," said Nancy Androsky, a longtime resident whose grandchildren go to school in the area. ..."
"... Conversations with residents of Linden and Argentine, which are located between the cities of Detroit and Flint, confirmed
what recent polls have shown -- that Republicans don't think the Russia investigation is a big deal. More than half of Republicans think
the investigation is a political distraction, according to Vox's Alexia Fernández Campbell's analysis of a June CBS News poll. Only
one in five consider it a critical security issue. ..."
"... And while nine out of 10 Democratic voters said that an investigation into Russian involvement in the election is somewhat
or very important, only 35 percent of Republicans agreed , according to a February poll by Quinnipiac University . ..."
"... More important to the residents of Linden and Argentine Township than the Russia investigation are promises Trump made on the
campaign trail: building a stronger military, restricting immigration by refugees and asylum seekers, and creating jobs for middle-class
Americans. ..."
"... And around 60 percent of people in the two towns voted for Trump in the last election, up from the approximately 50 percent
of people who voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012. ..."
"... Despite the fact that he has yet to follow through on many of his campaign promises, including softening his position on China's
currency manipulation, failing to build a wall on the US-Mexico border, and struggling to repeal and replace Obamacare, his supporters
keep saying "give him a chance." ..."
"... "I think Trump will be a lot better than our previous president. I think he's going to get things done," said Rich Marshbanks,
the owner of a local barbershop. "I think he's basically a good man. His heart's in the right place." ..."
"... It's not surprising that nearly every person I talked with said they supported Trump. With a combined population of approximately
6,500 people, the towns of Linden and Argentine are stereotypical small-town America. They're the kind of place where you'll run into
at least one person you know at the only grocery store in town and the smell of cow manure from nearby dairy farms occasionally wafts
in the air. ..."
"... "This is such a close-knit community," said Sharon Stone, the editor of the Tri-County Times, a newspaper covering several
towns in the area. "They love the small hometown feel, but all of the perks of having everything available to them. We have so many
lakes in this area, and there's quite a bit of money in this area." ..."
"... These towns are also almost entirely white -- 96 percent of Linden residents and 97 percent of Argentine residents identified
as white on the 2010 census. ..."
"... Stone described the area as "passionate," but since the last election, people have become disenchanted with politics. "It's
almost like they're completely fed up with politics in general on both sides," said Stone. "It's not necessarily just the whole Russian
thing that's going on. It's just politics in general." ..."
"... And based on the conversations I had with people in the area who agreed to talk with me, that definitely seems to be true.
People said they feel ignored by the Washington establishment, hate the "liberal media," and couldn't care less about the Russia investigation.
..."
"... "It's a waste of time and energy for us out here in the hinterlands for us to worry about what's going on in the cesspool in
Washington," said Norman Schmidt, Argentine's treasurer who has been on the board for more than 20 years. "And it's a swamp. It really
is a swamp."" ..."
"... If the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential elections, how come those wily Russkies failed to make the majority of voters
at the ballot box nationwide vote for Trump yet at the same time managed to make the majority of voters in the Rust Belt and rural USA
not vote for that mendacious shrew Clinton? ..."
"... Russian "sleepers" in Pittsburgh, Muskogee etc? ..."
"Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. "
If they keep up their obsession with Russia – YES!
Also – relevant article, which shows that this "rural/Red State American consensus", apparently, keeps up, despite the constant
propaganda barrage from the mainstream biased media. Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vox is dye in the wool liberal outlet
with handshakable agenda.
"It's been nearly a year since the FBI started an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Since then, the investigation has turned toward examining links between Russia and President Donald Trump's associates and members
of his campaign, and even possible obstruction of justice by Trump.
The investigation has been the go-to news item and topic of many heated conversations since last July, at least in DC .
But outside of the nation's capital, many voters aren't as concerned about possible Trump ties to Russia.
When I recently visited my hometown and one other small town in Michigan that went for Trump, I talked with residents about
the investigation. Nearly every single person I spoke with said the same thing: The media just needs to leave Trump alone, and
the Russia investigation is a distraction.
"I'm tired of hearing about the Russia thing. Let it go and move on. The media is the one that's propagating it. They just
won't let it die," said Nancy Androsky, a longtime resident whose grandchildren go to school in the area.
Conversations with residents of Linden and Argentine, which are located between the cities of Detroit and Flint, confirmed
what recent polls have shown -- that Republicans don't think the Russia investigation is a big deal. More than half of Republicans
think the investigation is a political distraction, according to Vox's Alexia Fernández Campbell's analysis of a June CBS News
poll. Only one in five consider it a critical security issue.
And while nine out of 10 Democratic voters said that an investigation into Russian involvement in the election is somewhat
or very important, only 35 percent of Republicans agreed , according to a February poll by
Quinnipiac University .
More important to the residents of Linden and Argentine Township than the Russia investigation are promises Trump made
on the campaign trail: building a stronger military, restricting immigration by refugees and asylum seekers, and creating jobs
for middle-class Americans.
And around 60 percent of people in the two towns voted for Trump in the last election, up from the approximately 50 percent
of people who voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.
Despite the fact that he has yet to follow through on many of his campaign promises, including softening his position on
China's currency manipulation, failing to build a wall on the US-Mexico border, and struggling to repeal and replace Obamacare,
his supporters keep saying "give him a chance."
"I think Trump will be a lot better than our previous president. I think he's going to get things done," said Rich Marshbanks,
the owner of a local barbershop. "I think he's basically a good man. His heart's in the right place."
It's not surprising that nearly every person I talked with said they supported Trump. With a combined population of approximately
6,500 people, the towns of Linden and Argentine are stereotypical small-town America. They're the kind of place where you'll run
into at least one person you know at the only grocery store in town and the smell of cow manure from nearby dairy farms occasionally
wafts in the air.
"This is such a close-knit community," said Sharon Stone, the editor of the Tri-County Times, a newspaper covering several
towns in the area. "They love the small hometown feel, but all of the perks of having everything available to them. We have so
many lakes in this area, and there's quite a bit of money in this area."
These towns are also almost entirely white -- 96 percent of Linden residents and 97 percent of Argentine residents identified
as white on the 2010 census.
Stone described the area as "passionate," but since the last election, people have become disenchanted with politics. "It's
almost like they're completely fed up with politics in general on both sides," said Stone. "It's not necessarily just the whole
Russian thing that's going on. It's just politics in general."
And based on the conversations I had with people in the area who agreed to talk with me, that definitely seems to be true.
People said they feel ignored by the Washington establishment, hate the "liberal media," and couldn't care less about the Russia
investigation.
"It's a waste of time and energy for us out here in the hinterlands for us to worry about what's going on in the cesspool
in Washington," said Norman Schmidt, Argentine's treasurer who has been on the board for more than 20 years. "And it's a swamp.
It really is a swamp.""
If the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential elections, how come those wily Russkies failed to make the majority of voters
at the ballot box nationwide vote for Trump yet at the same time managed to make the majority of voters in the Rust Belt and rural
USA not vote for that mendacious shrew Clinton?
"... "We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter. ..."
"... "Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment. That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than 22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper, Ohio Democratic Party chairman. ..."
"... The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump. ..."
ucgsblog says:
July 16, 2017 at 7:21 pm Sorry about being MIA, I'm probably going to be MIA until mid-August,
but in the meantime, here's an interesting article:
"We know that we can be an America that works for everyone, because we believe that our diversity
is our greatest strength. And we believe that when we put hope on the ballot we do well, and when
we allow others to put fear in the eyes of people we don't do so hot," Tom Perez, chairman of the
Democratic National Committee.
___
"We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not
talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic
Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter.
___
"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take
your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize," Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible.
___
"I focus a lot on good-paying jobs, student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal
the Affordable Care Act. Those are the issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think
(the Russia investigation) has to interfere with our conversation about every day matters in people's
lives," Jason Crow, Democratic candidate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District.
___
"Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making
that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment.
That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than
22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to
Hillary Clinton.
___
"We will both defend the integrity of our democracy (on the Russian investigation) and we will
defend access to health care for tens of millions of people. The resistance is big enough and sophisticated
enough to track both of those urgent and important issues," Anna Galland, executive director of Moveon.org
Civic Action.
___
"All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage
and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're
a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs
and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper,
Ohio Democratic Party chairman.
___
"We need to be able to explain what we're for just as emphatically as who we are against. Voters
need to hear you talking about them more than they hear you talking about yourself, your opponent
or the president." Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.
!!!!!!-
The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia"
I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite
a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is
someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump.
Looks like the DNC is slowly starting to realize what voters want, despite inner party special
interest groups. Levin and Crow summarize mainstream Democrats, so I'll just requote them:
"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take
your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize I focus a lot on good-paying jobs,
student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those are the
issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think (the Russia investigation) has to interfere
with our conversation about every day matters in people's lives"
Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned.
Say what you will about Trump, but he certainly made politics a lot more entertaining to watch. Not
sure if that's good or bad, but I'm getting popcorn.
"... Many leading liberals suspect , now with a little more evidence, that Trump worked with Russia to win his election. But we've long known that huge corporations and wealthy individuals threw their weight behind the billionaire. ..."
"... The top priority in Congress right now is to move a health bill that would gut Medicaid and throw at least 22 million Americans off their insurance -- while loosening regulations on insurance companies and cutting taxes on the wealthiest by over $346 billion . ..."
"... As few as 12 percent of Americans support that bill, but the allegiance of its supporters isn't to voters -- it's plainly to the wealthy donors who'd get those tax cuts. ..."
"... every single state ..."
"... Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
Der Spiegel's instantly infamous Donald Trump cover.
I've always been a little skeptical that there'd be a smoking gun about the Trump campaign's
alleged collusion with Russia. The latest news about Donald Trump, Jr., however, is
tantalizingly close.
The short version of the story,
revealed
by emails
the
New York Times
obtained, is that the president's eldest son was
offered "some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" and "would be
very useful to your father."
More to the point, the younger Trump was
explicitly
told this was "part of Russia
and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Donald, Jr.'s reply? "I love it."
Trump Jr. didn't just host that meeting at Trump Tower. He also brought along campaign
manager Paul Manafort and top Trump confidante (and son-in-law) Jared Kushner.
We still don't have evidence they coordinated with Russian efforts to release Clinton
campaign emails, spread "fake news," or hack state voting systems. But at the very least, the
top members of Trump's inner circle turned up to get intelligence they
knew
was part
of a foreign effort to meddle in the election.
Some in Washington are convinced they've heard enough already, with Virginia senator (and
failed VP candidate) Tim Kaine calling the meeting "
treason
."
Perhaps. But it's worth asking: Who's done the real harm here? Some argue it's not the
Russians after all.
"The effects of the crime are undetectable," the legendary social critic
Noam Chomsky says
of the alleged Russian meddling, "unlike the massive effects of
interference by corporate power and private wealth."
That's worth dwelling on.
Many leading liberals suspect , now with a little more evidence, that Trump worked
with Russia to win his election. But we've long known that huge corporations and
wealthy individuals threw their weight behind the billionaire.
That gambit's paying off far more handsomely for them -- and more destructively for the rest
of us -- than any scheme by Putin.
The evidence is hiding in plain sight.
The top priority in Congress right now is to move a health bill that would gut Medicaid and
throw at least 22 million Americans off their insurance -- while loosening regulations on
insurance companies and cutting taxes on the wealthiest by
over
$346 billion
.
As few as
12 percent of
Americans
support that bill, but the allegiance of its supporters isn't to voters -- it's
plainly to the wealthy donors who'd get those tax cuts.
Meanwhile,
majorities
of Americans
in
every single
congressional district support efforts to curb local
pollution, limit carbon emissions, and transition to wind and solar. And majorities in
every single state
back the Paris climate agreement.
Yet even as scientists warn large parts of the planet could soon become uninhabitable, the
fossil fuel-backed Trump administration has put a climate denier in charge of the EPA, pulled
the U.S. out of Paris, and signed legislation to let coal companies
dump toxic ash in local waterways
.
Meanwhile, as the administration escalates the unpopular Afghan war once again, Kushner
invited
billionaire military contractors
-- including Blackwater founder Erik Prince -- to advise on
policy there.
Elsewhere, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and other architects of the housing crash are advising
Trump on
financial
deregulation
, while student debt profiteers
set policy
at the Department of Education.
Chomsky complains that
this
sort of collusion is often "not considered a crime but
the normal workings of democracy." While Trump has taken it to new heights, it's certainly a
bipartisan problem.
If Trump's people did work with Russia to undermine our vote, they should absolutely be held
accountable. But the politicians leading the charge don't have a snowball's chance of redeeming
our democracy unless they're willing to take on the corporate conspirators much closer to home.
Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of
Foreign Policy In Focus.
Yet another classic "Yascha about Russia... " propaganda theme variation (
Gessen style Russophobia). This time he is from Germany, though. Some people would do everything to earn a living.
Notable quotes:
"... Judging by the comments in "Professor" Mounk's Twitter feed, the vast majority are pretty much wise to the deception. Whether
this holds for the retweets I don't know. But I'm pretty sure we are witnessing the decay of the establishment. ..."
"... Lemoine ( http://www.twitter.com/phl43) destroys the liberal media bullshit narrative piece by piece. I haven't found a more
thorough discussion anywhere else online. It's well worth reading just for its clarity and strength of argumentation. ..."
"... Illuminating how widely quoted and passed on is the rubbish of Yascha Mounk, and 'et al'. What does this say about the publications
and outlets that give such dishonesty a megaphone? They must lose credibility. ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts has written at various times words to the effect that just about all public and private institutions in
the US are now corrupt. It's hard to find examples that refute that thesis. ..."
"... so this is what Harvard has to offer. and to think having a Harvard education used to mean something. ..."
"... Nice to see at least one US Journalist take on and destroy two prominent Neocons. Here Tucker Carlson takes on Lt Col Ralph
Peters and Max Boot. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/07/13/tucker-carlson-neocon-slayer/ ..."
"... The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat
Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies. ..."
"... One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same. ..."
"... Charles C. Johnson said he also suggested that Smith get in touch with Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev'
and has collaborated with Johnson in the past. Auernheimer--who was released from federal prison in 2014 after having a conviction for
fraud and hacking offenses vacated [on appeal - May 2014] and subsequently moved to Ukraine . ..."
"... American lies should be put in context. The USA is a dying country, that is all but unmanageable, in the midst of its second
Civil War (fought mostly in the media now, but the erosion of country's national fabric is immense and keeps worsening). In such circumstances,
finding external enemy in order to redirect the destructive energy outward is simply a matter of national survival. That's why we have
the anti-Russia frenzy. ..."
"... That's how great countries fracture and disappear. It' ugly, and will only get uglier. ..."
The U.S. borg is vehemently trying to set up Russia as an enemy of the "west". Their anti-Russian propaganda has become part of
the campaign against U.S. President Trump who seeks détente with Russia. It requires intense efforts to denigrate the country, its
citizens and its leaders. Here is an example of how such propaganda is fabricated.
a Lecturer on Political Theory at Harvard University's Government Department, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Transatlantic Academy
of the German Marshall Fund, and a Nonresident Fellow at New America's Political Reform Program.
Need a reminder of the human cost of dictatorship? All these are journalists who criticized Putin--and died under mysterious circumstances
The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin is dully elected and not a dictator. The Russian Federation may not be
a "liberal democracy", but it is a democracy. The picture is old. It shows all Russian journalists who died during their work since
1991. Most of them died as war- or crime-correspondents and were not involved in politics at all. The death of most of those journalists
is not mysterious. Getting blown up by artillery during the wars in Chechnya, Yugoslavia or Ukraine is no mystery at all. Most of
these journalists never criticize Putin. They were already dead before Putin had any significant political role.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) lists 82 killed
Russian journalists since 1992, most of them died due to war or related to civil crimes or corruption. There are about 80 portraits
of journalists in the picture Mounk tweeted.
Two recognizable portraits and names therein are of Vlad Listyev, a TV entertainment producer
killed in 1995 over some controversy about lucrative
advertisement on public TV. Another portrait is of Dmitry Kholodov, killed in 1994 while investigating mafia connections within the
Russian military. At the time of their death Putin was a minor bureaucrat in Saint Petersburg. He did not gain power until he became
acting president at the end of 1999.
According to the CPJ numbers more Russian journalists
were killed during the eight years of Yeltsin's presidency (1992-2000) than in the 17 years of Putin's presidencies since. Mounk
claims "All these are journalists who criticized Putin ..." when more than half of them were already dead before Putin became known
and to power. It was during the time of the "
Harvard boys " who robbed Russia blind that most of these journalist were killed. The Russian system, thanks to the Harvard driven
"reforms" and criminal privatization under Yeltsin, is a rough terrain for investigating oligarchs and mafia businesses. But there
is
no evidence , none at all, that Putin was ever involved in the decease of any journalist.
The first original publishing of the Mounk picture may have been as early
as 2009 . A piece on journalists remembrance
in Russia from 2014 already includes the pic. The reverse
image search
shows
that the picture has been has been used by several news-outlets since.
Every aspect of the Mounk tweet is a lie.
But Mounk's lies have by now been re-tweeted over 22,000 times. Many of those who see it will believe the claims he makes. They
will trust a widely publish Harvard academic. But the tweet, as well as nearly all other claims about Russia one sees in "western"
media, is pure propaganda. It is like the editorial in today's New York Times that
claims "Russia's oil-dependent economy [is] in trouble" while all Russian economic numbers turned positive and all indicators
point to accelerating growth
. It is fake news.
The anti-Russian propaganda campaign is now part of the "liberal" campaign against U.S. president Trump. It is
failing . Trump's support is steady if not increasing despite daily new revelation about his (non existent) "collusion with Russia"
and the (non existing) "Russian interference" in the U.S. election.
The purveyors of the propaganda stories are in despair. Each and every new fire they try to stoke dies off within a day or two.
The temptation then is to invent and push ever bigger lies about Trump, Russia and their non-existing connections.
The fake news Mounk spits out, and which disqualify him as an academic, is a sign of their accelerating panic.
Posted by b on July 16, 2017 at 11:06 AM |
Permalink
Judging by the comments in "Professor" Mounk's Twitter feed, the vast majority are pretty much wise to the deception. Whether
this holds for the retweets I don't know. But I'm pretty sure we are witnessing the decay of the establishment.
Reminder these journalists and academics are so evil they actually want to repeal and replace the historic American nation with
a variety of mystery meat immigration (invasion).
Lemoine ( http://www.twitter.com/phl43) destroys the liberal
media bullshit narrative piece by piece. I haven't found a more thorough discussion anywhere else online. It's well worth reading
just for its clarity and strength of argumentation.
Apart from the two you mentioned, you can make out several other names right off the bat, like Soviet journalist Alexander
Kaverznev who died in 1983 and Gennadiy Kurennoy who died together with colleague and fellow Gosteleradio SSSR journalist Viktor
Nogin in an armed ambush in Yugoslavia, during the war in 1991. Also visible is Andrey Pralnikov, who died in 1997 after finally
succumbing to radiation injuries he sustained in 1986 during his on-site coverage of the Chernobyl accident (he wrote a book about,
too).
In short, the portraits in that room are just Soviet and Russian journalists that have died on the job, regardless of how these
deaths occured, and it goes back to the 1980s at least. Quite obviously, of the actual violence-related deaths the vast majority
are from the 1990's, since there's been a rather dramatic downwards trend since Putin assumed office.
On his blog (I don't know if it's still up) Fedia Kriukov did an in-depth assessment of the cases post-2000 (i.e. the ones
actually "under Putin") and found that several had nothing to do with the journalists' professional activities, but were just
the results of them dealing with the criminal underworld themselves, some were the results of violence not targeting them but
targeting people they happened to be covering at the time (e.g. Scott in 2002 and Khasanov in 2004), some were just pure bad luck,
and out of the very few that actually were clear targeted killings it always had to do with organized crime (Domnikov, Politovskaya,
Klebnikov).
And this is where the aforementioned downwards trend comes in, because the only correlation between journalists being murdered
and the Putin period is strongly negative, and the reason is that the chief cause of investigative journalists being murdered
- rampant organized crime and corrupted local law enforcement and officials - has been tackled rather successfully since 2000.
Illuminating how widely quoted and passed on is the rubbish of Yascha Mounk, and 'et al'. What does this say about the publications
and outlets that give such dishonesty a megaphone? They must lose credibility.
Paul Craig Roberts has written at various times words to the effect that just about all public and private institutions
in the US are now corrupt. It's hard to find examples that refute that thesis.
I interpret PCR's words to at core mean that dishonesty, including evil omission, is now in the United States pervasive, normalized,
institutionalized, 'mandatory' for those who want to remain 'gainfully employed' or accepted by those institutions.
That famous quote often identified with Orwell "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act" is
the opposite side of that same coin.
This culture of bs is of course much broader than the US. We have the now famous confession by Udo Ulfkotte that much German
media is corrupt, CIA controlled, bought and paid for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1lWKyRI10w
Another obscure but telling example: we have in Canada a book by Dr. Chopra titled 'Corrupt to the Core', detailing the situation
at Health Canada during Chopra's long employment there.
And the WHO has been a snake in the grass for example when it comes to radioactivity and human health, for two generations
allowing the nuclear powers that in effect act as censoring and misleading gatekeepers for material on that subject emanating
from the WHO. http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who
Perhaps I am engaging in wishfukl thinking but it seems to me we are seeing more and more signs of the breakdown of that systematic
and comprehensive dishonesty machine that has infiltrated so many institutions and required and rewarded dishonesty in so many
people? And along with that breakdown, the declining power of even so-called 'distinguished' institutions to wield power on behalf
of lies. The 'appeal to whatever authority' seems to be losing much of its previous punch.
The recent increase in disclosures and public awareness of institutionalized pedo-predation is an example. Trump's election
in the face of an unprecedented media and elite hostility, and extreme by same support for Clinton, to me suggests there is more
than just a leak in the disgusting dike sustaining dishonesty as default position.
And when it comes to Putin, his popularity not just in Russia has been sustained or even grown in the face of an extreme mass
media demonization effort.
The process puts me in mind of that scene from the Wizard of Oz where the wicked Witch is melting away, truth/water as deadly
nemesis.
so this is what Harvard has to offer. and to think having a Harvard education used to mean something.
two are the choices here, either malice or incompetence. I want to believe it is merely because he is incurious and is getting
enough positive feedback from his echo chamber but fear he knows full well what he is doing.
What is the endgame? How will rotten relations with Russia improve the lives of US citizens? If not the general population,
then who stands to gain?
Hit these academic thugs where it hurts. Cut off their funding. The main reason they do this lying is because it pays. If the
only reward was doing the right thing or speaking truth, then this Harvard Hack wouldn't be bothered. So, no tenure for you buddy.
No nothing. Now go write your head off.
Thanks to the commenter above for sharing my post and for the nice words he had about it. People here may also be interested in
the 3-part series of posts I wrote about the attack in Khan Sheikhoun. The first part is
here and there are links to the other parts
at the bottom of the post. I think it's the most thorough discussion of this attack, but I also discuss other similar incidents.
I carefully document a shocking amount of bias and incompetence on the part of journalists. I also wrote a 4-part series of posts
on this whole Russia/Trump nonsense back in February, which I think is still very relevant today. The first part is
here .
thanks b... fascinating how a guy from harvard is oblivious to harvards historical role here in the phase of ripping off russia
during and after the transition in 1991... great quote from you here - "It was during the time of the "Harvard boys" who robbed
Russia blind that most of these journalist were killed. The Russian system, thanks to the Harvard driven "reforms" and criminal
privatization under Yeltsin, is a rough terrain for investigating oligarchs and mafia businesses." why would this dipshit Yascha
Mounk say all this? who pays him to lie? he is completely discredited here.. someone ought to send him a link to your article
so he can see what an ignoramus or con man (it is one of the other) he really is..
The Mythbusters motto was:
"If a thing's worth doing, it's worth overdoing."
Considering that Mythbusters were in the business of exposing and/or confirming popular myths & memes, the "overdoing" aspect
was typically confined to exploring the limits to which the counter argument might prove to be valid.
The derision which the program attracted from edu-phobic 'purists' was regularly discredited by fulsome praise from scientists
who pointed out that Mythbusters' exploration of the counter-argument demonstrated text-book faithfulness to The Scientific Method.
I'd love to hear what Mounk tells himself in order to anesthetise his conscience when embracing The Un-scientific Method to
spread infantile, un-researched crap in the name of Harvard, Science and Mounk?
The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat
Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies.
One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same.
Liberal? ideals regularly featured are "Austerity For the Commons" and Tax Cuts for the rich with "Trickle Down" as the prevailing
economic model for the past 40 years. And warmongering.
The MSM has never openly opposed any US war and it has, in fact, provided justification for all US invasions.
Liberal - Conservative labeling is a tool to divide the commons.
The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat
Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies.
One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same.
Liberal? ideals regularly featured are "Austerity For the Commons" and Tax Cuts for the rich with "Trickle Down" as the prevailing
economic model for the past 40 years. And warmongering.
The MSM has never openly opposed any US war and it has, in fact, provided justification for all US invasions.
Liberal - Conservative labeling is a tool to divide the commons.
Meanwhile the list of those killed directly by the USG in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Syria.
Or indirectly by arming the murderers of the Yemeni, Ukraine and on and on and on, whose names we don't and may never know. "Their
name is Legion". He's a bullshit academic who should participate in the wars he wants others to fight to prove 'his theory'..
He can put his own skin in the game.
It is worth noting that 10 journalists and media persons have been killed in the Ukraine since the glorious revolution in 2014
against only 2 in Russia over the same period. This of cause is of zero interest to the western MSM.
The WSJ held an interview with Peter W. Smith and published an article by Shane Harris on June 29 titled "GOP Operative Sought
Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn".
Charles C. Johnson said he also suggested that Smith get in touch with Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the
alias 'Weev' and has collaborated with Johnson in the past. Auernheimer--who was released from federal prison in 2014 after
having a conviction for fraud and hacking offenses vacated [on appeal - May 2014] and subsequently moved to Ukraine .
How Harvard Lost Russia . The best and brightest of America's premier university came to Moscow in the 1990s to teach Russians how to be capitalists.
This is the inside story of how their efforts led to scandal and disgrace.
American lies should be put in context. The USA is a dying country, that is all but unmanageable, in the midst of its second
Civil War (fought mostly in the media now, but the erosion of country's national fabric is immense and keeps worsening). In such
circumstances, finding external enemy in order to redirect the destructive energy outward is simply a matter of national survival.
That's why we have the anti-Russia frenzy.
It'll fail because Russia is militarily unassailable, and because continuing with the campaign is not only not helping with
the domestic politics, but is scrambling America's geopolitical calculations. It's a geopolitical dead-end.
All in all, what we are seeing in the US is a full-scale panic of the establishment, with the MSM arm simply putting it all
out there, no matter how preposterous or inaccurate, in a desperate bid to salvage something that is fundamentally unsalvageable.
That's how great countries fracture and disappear. It' ugly, and will only get uglier.
@ 23 mh505... thanks.. that is a good link for getting a better understanding.. i wonder how Yascha Mounk perceives all this?
surely he can't be ignorant of it.. is someone paying him for his propaganda? what a waste of money it is!!!
So, going back to the photo. There are 8 chairs/portraits in each row, and about 10 rows, so that's roughly 80 people affiliated
with journalism that have died one way or another that might or might not be connected to their work, in 37 years (if we just
assume it starts at 1980, seeing as there is a 1983 case in direct view...)
Considering that we clearly have journalists that have died while reporting from combat zones (see my earlier comment) as well
as journalists that have died due to injuries received while reporting from dangerous "civilian" situations, it all comes across
as pretty unremarkable.
Mind you, between 1980 and 1991, the USSR was a country of nearly 300 million people, and the Russian Federation has been hovering
in the 140-150 ballpark since 1991.
Mind you, that the USSR was getting increasingly lawless towards the end, and pretty much all successor states were in a state
of anarchy for at least a couple of years past the Soviet demise (some longer than others, Russia longer than most thanks to Yeltsin
and the total carnage that the West supported)
Mind you that multiple armed conflicts occured during this time, both domestically (Chechnya 1 and 2 for instance, in which
a number of journalists were injured or killed) and in the near-abroad (the Georgian/Abkhazian/Ossetian/Ajaran conflicts, the
Azeri-Armenian conflicts, the numerous Central Asian conflicts, the the brief Moldovan warm, the Yugoslav wars etc)
...All things considered, 80 journalists dead over all this time is nothing compared to say Mexico. And Russia's also known
to have way more journalists per capita than most countries, which further adds to how underwhelming these statistics really are.
The final nail in the coffin is, of course, that all these scary statistics sank like a rock after Putin took office and Russia
has never been as peaceful, free and civilized as it is right now. But we've been through that.
Somebody should compile all the relevant information on this and make a glossy report, to be honest. I mean, it's all out there,
it's just that they get away with outright lying about it because people don't bother doing any research on their own and they
know it.
You can be entirely certain that the guy does not believe his own drivel. But: he may lose his job otherwise, which some would
consider attenuating circumstances.
To me, he is not the worst among those Harvard boys. A hypocrite of a much higher magnitude has to be Jeffrey Sachs, who was
among the most diligent drivers behind the destruction of post-communist Russia; yet today acts as if he never was even there.
A Saulus turned Paulus, except no atonement in any way
Did a Google News search on Yascha Mounk.
First, his publicity is based on some fairly bogus research on "millenials abandoning democracy". The WaPo ran a decent article
discrediting it, worth noting since the guy seems to have a taste for spinning data for political reasons:
. . .scary-chart-about-the-future-of-democracy-is-pretty-misleading/
Second, he calls for a "Cold War mentality", putting him in with the likes of Clinton & McCain & Bush-Cheney, Gary Kasparov, etc.
It's pretty boilerplate neocon/neolib thinking, here's a taste:
It's time to return to a Cold War mentality
By Yascha Mounk, Slate Mar 2017
Two years ago, when Garry Kasparov, the chess champion turned political dissident, began to warn that Vladimir Putin sought
to undermine liberal democracy!not only in neighboring countries, but all over the West!he was widely written off as a crank.
After Russia managed to hack the servers of the Democratic National Committee and spread fake news on an industrial scale,
his warnings were finally recognized as all too prescient. But it is only over the past weeks, as journalists around the world
have broken dozens of stories about Russian meddling in the democratic process, that the sheer scale of this effort has become
apparent.
The last time there was such a massive PR push inside the USA on a foreign policy issue was during the 2002-2003 runup to the
Iraq invasion, based on an equally bogus story as the Russia bogeyman one, i.e. Iraqi WMDs.
The fact is, a multipolar world without "American exceptionalism" will be a better deal for the average American citizen, if
not for the Washington circle of trough-feeders. This is a basic truth that the neoliberal empire-builders just can't handle.
Of course, the big academic institutions are on board with endless military-industrial budgets, NATO expansion, regime change.
Just as academic institutions in the old Soviet Union always went along with Central Committee PR lines.
On the other hand, on domestic policy? If you look into details, Clinton and Trump are not so different here - basically it's
corporate rule, Trump and Clinton have similar numbers of Goldman Sachs people on their teams. Equally disastrous policies on
the fundamentals like infrastructure, energy, manufacturing, etc. We'd be better off just giving our tax dollars to China to have
them rebuild our infrastructure, it's that pitiful.
Maybe Trump should just spend the next four years abroad, running around with world leaders having a good time, ignoring all
the neoliberal establishment pleas for regime changes and NATO wars, completely ignoring the domestic situation? The corrupt federal
government in Washington can fight itself to death, and the states can run domestic policy instead?
@RobinG Well said. The legacy media and permanent ("deep") state are struggling to savage
Trump with absurd accusations, but our cage-fighter is keeping them at bay with his smart-phone.
Meanwhile, journalist (and that's in the best sense) Lee Stranahan is building a solid case
on the DNC's crimes, including collusion with a foreign government. Please share this -
The MUST SEE guide to DNC/Ukraine Collusion and Election Interference Agree.
Meanwhile, here is a sensational article re "great America:" "CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed:
'We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11″ http://yournewswire.com/cia-911-wtc7/
"... War with Russia is a call to murder Russian people. They don't deserve our hatred. ..."
"... Those of you who are preoccupied with the narrative that Russia hacked the election, please stop discounting the millions of us who had not voted for decades that came out to prevent Mrs. Clinton from rising to such a position of power. Then stop to consider that what you want the American Government to do, create an enemy of Russia, is to create an enemy of the Russian people. You want to kill the people who I have seen in these videos for really no better reason than you don't like how an election turned out. ..."
Several months ago you had a video of a group of young Russian women singing a Russian folk
song acapella (Youtube, Russian Girls Sing Lube) which left a lasting impression on me. For the
last several days I have been exploring Russian folk music for the sake of getting an idea of
what these people are like. My observations are below with a link to a video by a Russian folk
music group.
The point is people who have their noses twisted out of joint over the defeat of a horribly
corrupt presidential candidate would choose to see people such as those I have seen in the
Russian folk music videos vaporized. We have become a hideous country.
War with Russia is a call to murder Russian people. They don't deserve our
hatred.
This text is from my facebook posting which also has a link to the folk music video.
I have been taking time recently to find some information on the Russian people since the
American political system seems so dedicated to make war against Russia.
I have been captivated by their folk music and the love they put into it. Much of it has
been acapella and beautiful. In all of those presentations I got the sense that each singer
considered the song more important than their individual talent, and the sound of the group the
tribute to the song.
In watching tho se videos I came to the impression that the Russian people are happy, proud
and strong. This impression speaks highly of their character, as it was within the lifetime of
most Americans that the Russian system collapsed and those people had the duty to rebuild their
economy, culture, and faith from the rubble left by Soviet Communism. It seems to me they have
done it.
The main point here is a war with Russia is a war on these courageous, warm, and resilient
people. I challenge anybody who is upset with what happened in the election last November to
watch any of these videos and ask yourself if you have ever been as happy as the people that
are in them. I don't believe any of them care who is President of the United States or probably
that Vladimir Putin is the leader of their country. After all, Putin said that Russia spans 11
time zones an most Russians live life without worrying about the government.
Those of you who are preoccupied with the narrative that Russia hacked the election,
please stop discounting the millions of us who had not voted for decades that came out to
prevent Mrs. Clinton from rising to such a position of power. Then stop to consider that what
you want the American Government to do, create an enemy of Russia, is to create an enemy of the
Russian people. You want to kill the people who I have seen in these videos for really no
better reason than you don't like how an election turned out.
House Democrats announced a new strategy on Friday to force votes in an effort to highlight President Trump's possible ties to Russia.
Democrats plan to offer measures known as resolutions of inquiry that automatically trigger floor votes if they don't get action
in committee within 14 legislative days.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and several other Democratic lawmakers scheduled a press conference in the Capitol
to announce the plans on Friday morning.
The announcement included members of the House Financial Services, Ways and Means, Transportation and Infrastructure, Foreign
Affairs, Homeland Security and Judiciary committees.
Democrats are seizing on the few tools at their disposal given their limited ability to direct congressional oversight while in
the minority.
Republicans are likely to consider the resolutions in committee to avoid forcing the entire House to vote on them.
Still, the votes are meant to put a spotlight on Trump as well as House Republicans, who Democrats say aren't being aggressive
enough with oversight of the administration.
For instance, one resolution unveiled as part of the strategy would request documents or records from Trump relating to his abrupt
firing of James Comey as FBI director in May and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' involvement in the decision.
The resolution, offered by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), will go to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.
The Judiciary panel already rejected multiple previous resolutions of inquiry earlier this year that demanded documents from the
Justice Department connecting the Trump campaign with the Russian government's 2016 election interference.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) also offered a resolution of inquiry in the House Ways and Means Committee to request President Trump's
tax returns from the last decade.
The party-line votes in committee to dismiss the resolutions prevented any House floor vote.
But Democrats are determined to force more votes - even if they don't go anywhere - to pressure Republicans after revelations
this week involving President Trump's son.
Donald Trump Jr. released emails on Tuesday showing how he set up a meeting last year with a Russian lawyer claiming to have damaging
information about Hillary Clinton.
A publicist with ties to a Trump family business partner who served as an intermediary said that it was "obviously very high level
and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
The intelligence and
military leakers and Trump's political enemies believe friendly relations with Vladimir Putin's
government are dangerous. But since Russia can annihilate our country, the greater danger is
not engaging with Putin.
The anti-Russia hyperventilation covers the political spectrum. Republican Sen. John McCain
told an interviewer
that Putin is a greater threat than ISIS, accusing Russia of trying to change election results
in America, France and elsewhere. But Putin's regime is not decapitating or urging lone wolves
to massacre Americans on US soil. And as for Russian manipulation, the pro-Russian candidate
Marine LePen was crushed in the May presidential election in France.
Democrat Hillary Clinton accused the Trump campaign of conspiring with Russia to "weaponize"
leaked information against her with the WikiLeaks' dump of John Podesta email messages.
Clinton's collusion assertion is based on her questionable assumption that WikiLeaks is an
agent of Russia. Since WikiLeaks operates out of an embassy in London, one might expect our
British allies to have leaked Putin's instructions to Julian Assange by now.
McCain, Clinton and others are amplifying the US intelligence community's public indictment of Russia for
election meddling during the closing days of the Obama administration. That report also claims
that Russian agents hacked Podesta's email and released them through WikiLeaks, but does not
provide hard evidence.
Intelligence community assertions should be treated with skepticism. After all, this
community concluded in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Further, a senior member of the
intelligence community, James Clapper,
lied to Congress in 2013 when he denied that the NSA collects data on Americans.
Even assuming the allegations are true, they do not lead to the immediate conclusion that
Russia is an enemy. Friendly countries spy on one another and try to influence each other's
elections all the time. President Obama called on
British voters to reject Brexit, and the NSA
appears to have bugged German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's mobile phone.
Israel spies on the US and tries to influence our elections. Jonathan Pollard's espionage
"has few parallels" according to the
CIA , which concluded he had "put at risk important U.S. intelligence and foreign policy
interests." In 2012, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
attempted to scuttle President Obama's re-election effort.
Most of the intelligence community memo focuses on the activities of RT, a Russian media
group that operates a cable news channel, a web site and social media properties in the US. RT
is accused of spreading propaganda and fake news that impacted our election. But such media are
neither new nor unique to Russia.
Our Voice of America, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and other state media have been
around for decades. Among the personalities on RT America are Larry King, Jesse Ventura, and
former Air America hosts Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz – none of whom appear to be stooges
for Vladimir Putin. Further, as Simon van Zuylen-Wood noted in his excellent overview of RT , the network
"is watched by so few people that Nielsen doesn't bother to publish its ratings."
To be sure, Putin has some very undemocratic inclinations. But the US has maintained and
continues to maintain friendly relations with despotic nations. President Richard Nixon visited
China in 1971, not long after Mao Zedong killed tens of millions of people with his Great Leap
Forward and Cultural Revolution. Today, there is widespread support for friendly relations with
Saudi Arabia – an undemocratic nation that stones women to
death for adultery.
It is also true that Russia is a rival for influence on the world stage. This perhaps is why
our generals, intelligence operatives, representatives, think tanks and the media so dislike
Putin. While the foreign affairs intelligentsia views the world as a power-playing chessboard,
this approach to geopolitics is contrary to the interests of ordinary Americans who don't
benefit from international conflicts.
When President Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak in the oval office a few weeks ago, he shared intelligence about a plot by Syrian-based
ISIS operatives to place laptop bombs on civilian airplanes. Russia's presence in Syria may
have helped thwart this plot. And it had an incentive to do so: ISIS previously downed
a Russian civilian airliner in the Sinai Desert.
As president, Donald Trump has the legal right to declassify the intelligence. But some
unelected bureaucrat in the US national security establishment decided that Trump's actions
were inappropriate and leaked the story to The Washington Post . It is possible the
leak alerted ISIS that its plot had been compromised, encouraging the terrorists to protect
their bomb-building efforts from further scrutiny. The potential victims of this leak are
civilian passengers of US airlines – the presumed target of the ISIS plot.
Russia also provided intelligence
that, had it been handled properly by the FBI, could have prevented the Tsarnaev brothers from
bombing the Boston marathon.
Rather than cooperating, however, the national security establishment not only seeks
conflict with Russia, it looks for enemies around the world. Hostilities provide lucrative
contracts and a sense of mission to those advancing them – but imposes huge costs on the
rest of us. US troops are now engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and
Somalia.
Worldwide warfare has driven national security spending toward $1 trillion a year. With a
national debt approaching $20 trillion, this is a financial cost our country can ill afford.
And since 2001, the US has suffered almost 7,000 deaths and over 52,000 wounded
in foreign hostilities.
Democrats 50 years ago were peace organizers, fired by Martin Luther King's
condemnation of the Vietnam War. And Barack Obama won the presidency promising to withdraw
from Iraq.
But in their desire to rid the White House of Donald Trump, Democrats have forsaken their
anti-war heritage. Instead, they are teaming up with Republican hawks and the Deep State to
drive a wedge between the US and Russia.
Libertarians are the logical champions of peace and prosperity, but some have expressed
sympathy for coercive US government actions to counter Russian influence. These include
targeted sanctions and funding for groups in Eastern Europe that supposedly promote liberal
democracy.
Although portrayed as a penalty on foreign powers, sanctions prevent US individuals and
companies and individuals from doing business with those countries. A new Senate bill,
S.722 , prevents US companies from working on gas pipelines between Russia and Western
Europe. The bill also appropriates $500 million of US taxpayer money to a "Countering Russian
Influence Fund," to be spent in Eastern Europe. The legislative language lists six possible
uses for this money which sound good, but are vague and open to broad interpretation.
Libertarians recognize the state usually abuses the powers we give it. We should never
advocate for restrictions on trade or appropriation of tax money for so-called democracy
promotion. Peace and non-interventionism are core tenets of libertarianism that too many
self-identified libertarians seem to forget. We must avoid repeating the mistakes we made in the runup
to the Iraq War.
Regardless of one's position on Trump, Congress has not declared war on Russia. Russia has
not invaded us. Russia is not our enemy.
They want to outdo Senator Joseph McCarthy (November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957). The level of hysteria and paranoia is amazing.
The only question is whether they can run it for ten years.
Obviously the author has an agenda but it's interesting how this type of fantasy continues to be 'quacked'
Notable quotes:
"... By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony
news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect
the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts. ..."
"... One source familiar with Justice's criminal probe said investigators doubt Russian operatives controlling the so-called robotic
cyber commands that fetched and distributed fake news stories could have independently "known where to specifically target to which
high-impact states and districts in those states." ..."
WASHINGTON -- Investigators at the House and Senate Intelligence committees and the Justice Department are examining whether the
Trump campaign's digital operation – overseen by Jared Kushner – helped guide Russia's sophisticated voter targeting and fake news
attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Congressional and Justice Department investigators are focusing on whether Trump's campaign pointed Russian cyber operatives to
certain voting jurisdictions in key states – areas where Trump's digital team and Republican operatives were spotting unexpected
weakness in voter support for Hillary Clinton, according to several people familiar with the parallel inquiries.
Also under scrutiny is the question of whether Trump associates or campaign aides had any role in assisting the Russians in publicly
releasing thousands of emails, hacked from the accounts of top Democrats, at turning points in the presidential race, mainly through
the London-based transparency web site WikiLeaks .
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told McClatchy he wants to know whether
Russia's "fake or damaging news stories" were "coordinated in any way in terms of targeting or in terms of timing or in terms of
any other measure with the (Trump) campaign."
By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony
news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect
the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts.
Russia's operation used computer commands knowns as "bots" to collect and dramatically heighten the reach of negative or fabricated
news about Clinton, including a story in the final days of the campaign accusing her of running a
pedophile ring at a Washington
pizzeria .
One source familiar with Justice's criminal probe said investigators doubt Russian operatives controlling the so-called robotic
cyber commands that fetched and distributed fake news stories could have independently "known where to specifically target to which
high-impact states and districts in those states."
All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is confidential.
Top Democrats on the committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election have signaled the same.
Schiff said he wants the House panel to determine whether Trump aides helped Russia time its cyberattacks or target certain voters
and whether there was "any exchange of information, any financial support funneled to organizations that were doing this kind of
work."
Trump son-in-law Kushner, now a senior adviser to the president and the only current White House aide known to be deemed a "person
of interest" in the Justice Department investigation, appears to be under the microscope in several respects. His real estate finances
and December meetings with Russia's ambassador and the head of a sanctioned, state-controlled bank are also being examined.
Kushner's "role as a possible cut-out or conduit for Moscow's influence operations in the elections," including his niche overseeing
the digital operations, will be closely looked at, said the source knowledgeable about the Justice Department inquiry.
Kushner joined Donald Trump Jr. and Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort at a newly disclosed June 2016 meeting with a Russian
lawyer at Trump Tower in New York.. The meeting, revealed by The New York Times, followed emails in which Trump Jr. was told the
lawyer for the Russian government would provide him with incriminating information on Clinton and he replied "If it's what you say
I love it."
That disclosure could only serve to heighten interest in whether there was digital collaboration.
Mike Carpenter, who in January left a senior Pentagon post where he worked on Russia matters, also has suspicions about collaboration
between the campaign and Russia's cyber operatives.
"There appears to have been significant cooperation between Russia's online propaganda machine and individuals in the United States
who were knowledgeable about where to target the disinformation," he said, without naming any American suspects.
Trump has repeatedly repudiated or equivocated about the finding of four key intelligence agencies – the FBI, CIA, National Security
Agency and the Directorate of National Intelligence – that Russian cyber operatives meddled with the U.S. election.
Last Friday, during their first face-to-face meeting, Trump questioned Putin about Russia's role in the election meddling and
Putin denied culpability, said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was present. Trump then said the two countries should find ways
to move forward in their relationship, Tillerson said.
A Russian official who was at the meeting said the two sides agreed to form a working group to address cybersecurity, including
interference in other countries' internal affairs. However, Trump backtracked Sunday night, saying in a tweet that he doesn't believe
such an effort can happen.
As more has been learned about the breadth of the Russian cyber onslaught, congressional Democrats have shown growing resolve
to demand that the Republican-controlled intelligence committees fully investigate ways in which Trump associates may have conspired
with the Russians.
Among other things, congressional investigators are looking into whether Russian operatives, who successfully penetrated
voting registration systems in Illinois, Arizona and possibly other states, shared any of that data with the Trump campaign,
according to a report in Time.
"I get the fact that the Russian intel services could figure out how to manipulate and use the bots," Virginia Sen. Mark Warner
told Pod Save America recently. "Whether they could know how to target states and levels of voters that the Democrats weren't even
aware (of) really raises some questions How did they know to go to that level of detail in those kinds of jurisdictions?"
The Russians appear to have targeted women and African-Americans in two of the three decisive states, Wisconsin and Michigan,
"where the Democrats were too brain dead to realize those states were even in play," Warner said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has advised the US State Department to keep up with
events after spokesperson Heather Nauert said that Lavrov "likes to talk a lot and get out ahead".
The Russian Foreign Minister was quick to retort, however.
"Nobody should get out ahead of things, but I suppose lagging behind real events does not help
in a diplomat's job either."
"I don't understand how this lady can know what I like and don't like. We haven't been introduced",
Lavrov said", speaking with the press following his meeting with the Belgian counterpart, Didier
Reynders, in Brussels on Wednesday.
I suppose Lavrov called her "a lady" because he's a gentleman, but for me she's just a woman who
shoots the shit that she's told and paid to shoot -- with a big, fixed smile on her Barbie-Doll face.
Big false smile, American know-nothing spokesperson.
"... The best analysis of what is really going on in the world is coming out of the alternative media. Molyneux is one of the heavy hitters in this world - with his 700k Youtube subscribers and similar numbers of podcast listeners, he matters. ..."
"... One of his points is this: How could this possibly be a serious Russian government effort if they have a fat Brit moron convey the message over unencrypted email? Our staff of Russian-trained intelligence experts has to concur. ..."
The best analysis of what is really going on in the world is coming out of the alternative media. Molyneux is one of the heavy
hitters in this world - with his 700k Youtube subscribers and similar numbers of podcast listeners, he matters.
One of his points is this: How could this possibly be a serious Russian government effort if they have a fat Brit moron convey
the message over unencrypted email? Our staff of Russian-trained intelligence experts has to concur.
Say hi to Rob Goldstone. This will be over in a few days, and as before, the dummies who are chasing this idea, will just look
stupider than they already do.
Save this video and watch it over your Wheaties tomorrow morning. Molyneux nails it.
Karl Rove said in the middle of year 2000 to VIP lawyers in Washington, that they no more would be occupied with analises of
facts but forward with analising the reality Washington defined.
Due to the unipolar position Washington would from early year 2000 define the reality the world should face and spend (waste)
their time on analising.
Molyneux is good to hear and see on many subjects, but this subect is in my opinion irrelevant, irrelevant as the Russia hacking
US election is, the Assad Chemical attack, the HitlerPutin, the Crimea annexion hoax, the NK threat, man made clima change hoax,
etc.
People with true intelligent capabilities should of course not spend their time on finding evidences on and document all Washington´s
lies and defined realities.
Both Molyneux, RI and many others must have the right to dismiss obvious lies and propagandas, and go straight to the subject,
that anybody with power that lie to us and the public should and must be removed and replaced.
Otherwise we are using our powers, intelligence and energy in an un-constructive way and we never learn, because we jump on
the joke and hot air train again again.
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about
Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.
Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.
Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.
It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and
being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.
Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on
as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which
his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.
Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:
"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian
President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in
this bashing of Trump and Putin.
As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:
"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and
Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ...
and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.
The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or
cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done.
I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."
Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and
down in emphatic agreement.
Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring
- 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and
their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't
say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.
Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home
of the brave.
MOSCOW - The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the presidential campaign denied in an exclusive interview with
NBC News that she had any connection to the Kremlin and insists she met with President Donald Trump's son to press her client's interest
in the Magnitsky Act - not to hand over information about Hillary Clinton's campaign.
"I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that," Natalia Veselnitskaya
said.
When asked how Trump Jr. seemed to have the impression that she had information about the Democratic National Committee, she responded:
"It is quite possible that maybe they were longing for such an information. They wanted it so badly that they could only hear
the thought that they wanted."
Trump Jr. has confirmed that the meeting occurred, saying in a statement to The New York Times that he attended "a short introductory
meeting" with the lawyer, where the topic of conversation was primarily about adoption.
On Monday, Trump Jr. seemed to confirm that he had been offered information about Hillary or her campaign but insisted that nothing
untoward in the meeting had occurred.
"Obviously I'm the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent... went nowhere but had to
listen," he tweeted, seemingly sarcastic.
The New York Times on Monday reported that Trump Jr. was told in an email before the meeting that the information Veselnitskaya
had was part of a Russian government effort to help his father's candidacy.
But Veselnitskaya flatly denied any connection to the Russian government.
This female lawyer probably can be characterized as anti-Russian lawyer. She is more probably MI6 asset then FSB asset ;-) (connection
with William F. Browder
).
But attempts to stir the pot of Purple Color Revolution ( aka Russiagate) will continue. Neocons are pretty tenacious.
Notable quotes:
"... That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.'' ..."
"... But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy. ..."
"... But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy his ability to bring about a détente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the timing in all this. ..."
During a post-dinner cigar session at his elegant Cleveland mansion, Hanna reported back to McKinley on the results of his mission.
Another participant recalled that the excited Hanna seemed "as keen as a razor blade.''
"Now, Major," said the political operative, addressing the governor by his Civil War title, "it's all over but the shouting. You
can get both New York and Pennsylvania, but there are certain conditions." He didn't show any discomfort with the conditions, but
McKinley was wary.
"What are they?" he asked. Hanna explained that Quay wanted control of all federal patronage in Pennsylvania, while others wanted
to dominate government jobs in New England and Maine. But Platt wanted a bigger prize!the job of secretary of the Treasury!and he
wanted a promise in writing.
McKinley stared ahead, puffing on his cigar. Then he rose from his chair, paced the room a few moments, and turned to Hanna.
"Mark," he said, "there are some things in this world that come too high. If I were to accept the nomination on those terms, the
place would be worth nothing to me, and less to the people. If those are the terms, I am out of it.''
Hanna was taken aback. "Not so fast," he protested, explaining that, while it would be "damned hard" to prevail over the powerful
bosses, who would surely not take kindly to a rebuff, Hanna thought it could be done and he welcomed the challenge. The men in the
room pondered the situation and came up with a slogan: "The People Against the Bosses.''
McKinley ultimately beat the bosses, stirring a Washington Post reporter to write that "the big three of the Republican
Party hoped to find McKinley as putty in their hands. When they failed, they vowed war on him." But now, said the reporter, their
war was sputtering. "And over in the Ohio city by the lake, one Mark Hanna is laughing in his sleeve.''
This little vignette from the mists of the political past comes to mind with the latest development in the ongoing saga involving
suspected Russian interference in last year's presidential campaign and the search for evidence that President Trump or his top campaign
officials "colluded" with Russians to influence the electoral outcome. Now it turns out that the president's son, Donald Jr., met
with a Russian lawyer, at the behest of a Russian friend, with an understanding beforehand that the lawyer could provide "official
documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and be very useful to your father."
For good measure, Donald Jr. took along his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, a top Trump adviser, and his father's campaign manager
at the time, Paul Manafort.
This is no small matter, and it is certain to roil the waters of the ongoing investigations. More significantly, it will roil
the political scene, contributing mightily to the deadlock crisis that has America in its grip. White House officials and Trump supporters
are defending young Trump with pronouncements that nothing was amiss here; every campaign collects dirt on opponents; nothing done
was against the law; we must get beyond these "gotcha" political witch hunts, etc., etc.
Meanwhile. Trump opponents see skulky tendencies, nefarious intent, moral turpitude, and likely illegality. Both sides are trotting
out criminal lawyers declaring, based on their prior political proclivities, that no laws were broken!or that laws were clearly broken.
The cable channels are crackling with competition over who can be more definitive and sanctimonious on the air!Lou Dobbs and Sean
Hannity at Fox in defending the president; or Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews in attacking him on MSNBC.
Meanwhile, the country will continue to struggle with the question of what all this Sturm und Drang actually means. What
to think? Whom to believe?
Let's stipulate, for purposes of analysis, that what we see is what there is, that what we know is not a harbinger of worse to
come. How should we assess what we know thus far? What should we make of that meeting with the Russian lawyer?
That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed
to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.''
Consider that, after months of investigation, with leaks all over the place from those conducting the probe, no serious evidence
emerged of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The collusion story was receding in the national consciousness,
and even in the Washington consciousness, with questions of "obstruction of justice" supplanting collusion as the more significant
avenue of inquiry. Now the question of collusion is once again in the air.
The fate of Donald Trump Jr. is a puny matter in the scheme of things, but the state of the union is a huge matter. And the young
man's stupidity of a year ago will have!indeed, is already having!a significant impact on the president's leadership. He campaigned
on a pledge to improve relations with Russia, with an implicit acknowledgment that the West was probably equally responsible, along
with Moscow, for the growing tensions between the two nations. He was right about that. Then came the evidence of Russian meddling
in the U.S. election and the allegations of collusion, and Trump's effort at improving relations was killed in the crib.
But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump
sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the
two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the
president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy.
Now let's set aside, for just a moment, the previous stipulation that what we see is all there is. It's possible, of course, that
this unfortunate meeting actually was part of a much bigger conspiracy that, if disclosed in full, could engulf the administration
in revelations of such magnitude as to bring down the president. It's possible, but not likely.
But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict
his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy
his ability to bring about a détente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the
timing in all this.
Actions, even more than ideas, have consequences. That's what Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort ignored when they accepted an invitation
to meet with a Russian representative with "official documents" that could harm the candidacy of the Democratic contender.
And that's precisely what William McKinley had in mind when he said he wouldn't enter into unsavory bargains with the Eastern
bosses even if it meant giving up his presidential dream. Of course, McKinley was thinking in part about his own personal code of
conduct!his inability to live with a decision that was beneath his concept of rectitude. But note that he also invoked the American
people when he recoiled at the thought. He wouldn't take an action that he considered inconsistent with his duty to the electorate.
That was a long time ago!and a world away. Today we have the likes of the Trumps!and, for that matter, the Clintons, who leave
nearly everyone in their wake when it comes to moral and ethical laxity in matters of public policy. And so it must have seemed perfectly
normal for those three men, part of Donald Trump's inner circle of campaign confidantes, to accept the idea of sitting down with
someone from a foreign power and talk about how official documents from that power could help upend their opponent. Did Trump himself
know about all this as it was unfolding? We don't know, but probably. In any event, it probably wasn't a crime, but it was a hell
of a blunder.
... ... ...
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative.
His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due
out from Simon & Schuster in November.
Muller was Bush II 9/11 coverup guy. he is vulnerable.
Trump correctly identified Muller investigation to be a
"witch hunt"
telling Fox News that he finds Mueller's long-standing relationship with Comey
"bothersome." So there should be a central figure who organizes that the defense and Bannon with
his media formidable skills is suitable for this role, because he understands the political
"kitchen", while Trump does not. Actually all Trump adversaries have skeletons in the closets
too, so "nuclear option" is always on the table. 9/11 provides plenty such skeletons for all
leading anti-Trump figures. But in the meantime it is important to know the difference between
rational political move and political suicide.
The fact that Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers now bound Muller to
lekk at leakers too, not only at Trump. It he does not so he is open attacks for partisanship and
carrying water for Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich ..."
For Trump, Bannon's distinctive vocabulary was another point of his appeal. Bannon gloried
in the slights and scorn directed at Trump supporters, proudly insisting that elitist
Clintonites looked down on them as "hobbits," "Grundoons," and -- co-opting Clinton's own
ill-advised term -- "deplorables." Anyone who thought otherwise was a "mook" or a "schmendrick."
And Clinton herself was the subject of a steady stream of derision, carefully pitched to
Trump's own biases and insecurities and delivered with the passion of a cornerman firing up a
boxer for one last grueling round in the ring. Clinton, Bannon would insist, was "a
résumé," "a total phony," "terrible on the stage," "a grinder, but not smart," "a
joke who hides behind a complacent media," "an apple-polisher who couldn't pass the D.C. bar
exam," "thinks it's her turn" but "has never accomplished anything in her life" -- and, for good
measure, was "a f---ing bull dyke."
Although Trump didn't dwell on policy details, Bannon pitched in there, too. When Trump came
under fire because his campaign hadn't produced a single policy paper, Bannon arranged for
Nunberg and Ann Coulter, the conservative pundit, to quickly write a white paper on Trump's
immigration policies. When the campaign released it, Coulter, without disclosing her role,
tweeted that it was "the greatest political document since the Magna Carta."
Bannon and Breitbart also operated as shock troops for Trump's on-and-off war with Fox News.
Trump's fixation with the cable network was a powerful force throughout the campaign. Although
he had appeared regularly on Fox for years and had staunch backers at the network, Sean Hannity
chief among them, Fox wasn't always friendly. And Trump was stung by a humiliation he'd
suffered from Rupert Murdoch. He often told intimates how, as he was preparing to launch his
campaign, his daughter Ivanka had arranged a lunch with Murdoch to share the news. Soon after
the three of them were seated and the waiter brought their soup, Ivanka spoke up: "My father
has something to tell you."
"What's that?" Murdoch said.
"He's going to run for president."
"He's not running for president," Murdoch replied without looking up from his soup.
"No, he is!" she insisted.
Murdoch changed the subject.
Trump nursed the slight for months. "He didn't even look up from his soup!" he'd complain.
Nowhere was Trump's clash with the network more pronounced than in the aftermath of the first
GOP debate -- sponsored by Fox News and co-moderated by Megyn Kelly -- on August 6 in Cleveland.
Trump was particularly worried about Kelly, whose show he had backed out of three days earlier,
complaining to a friend that she was out to get him. (Bannon had a special loathing for Kelly,
just as some Fox hosts did for him. "Bannon is human garbage," one of them told me.)
When the lights went up in Cleveland, Kelly went right after Trump, confronting him with his
history of sexist statements. "You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs,'
and 'disgusting animals,' " she said. "Does that sound to you like the temperament of a
man we should elect as president?"
Within minutes of the debate's end, even as Trump was still nursing his grievances on live
television, reporters started to realize that the revelations of his past behavior, so bluntly
excavated by Kelly, had caused an intense reaction among Republican voters -- not against Trump
but against Fox News. Bannon and the Breitbart editors had the same reaction and immediately
turned on Kelly with a fusillade of negative articles slamming her as a backstabbing,
self-promoting betrayer of the cause. Breitbart soon became the locus of pro-Trump, anti-Fox
conservative anger. Between Thursday night, when the debate took place, and Sunday evening,
Breitbart published 25 stories mentioning Kelly, and
the site's editor-in-chief, Alex Marlow
, went on CNN to accuse Fox News of "trying to take
out Donald Trump" and staging "a gotcha debate."
The intensity of Republican anger stunned Fox News executives. The debate had drawn a record
24 million viewers. Now many of them were apoplectic at the network's top talent. In a panic,
Ailes called Bannon and begged him to call off the attacks. "Steve, this isn't fair, and it's
killing us," Ailes said. "You have to stop it." "F--- that, that was outrageous what she did!"
Bannon retorted. "She pulled every trick out of the leftist playbook."
The call ended without resolution. Bannon and Ailes would not speak again for almost a year.
Even after Ailes and Trump patched up their relationship, Bannon refused to relent. In fact,
Breitbart's attacks on Kelly grew uglier. "Flashback: Megyn Kelly Discusses Her Husband's Penis
and Her Breasts on Howard Stern," read a Breitbart headline a week after the debate. Ailes
eventually dispatched his personal lawyer, Peter Johnson Jr., to the Breitbart embassy in D.C.
to deliver a message to Bannon to end the war on Kelly. When he arrived, Johnson got straight
to the point: If Bannon didn't stop immediately, he would never again appear on Fox News.
Bannon was incensed at the threat.
"She's pure evil," he told Johnson. "And she will turn on [Ailes] one day. We're going
full-bore. We're not going to stop. I'm gonna unchain the dogs." The conversation was brief and
unpleasant, and it ended with a cinematic flourish. "I want you to go back to New York and
quote me to Roger," Bannon said. " 'Go f--- yourself.' "
Bannon remained a loyal outsider for most of the campaign. Then in August 2016, as Trump
looked to be spiraling toward a blowout loss, Rebekah Mercer, whose family put millions of
dollars into both Breitbart and Trump's presidential run, helped arrange for Bannon to take
over. One weakness of Trump's campaign was that it was guided almost entirely by the
candidate's impulses. Bannon kept Trump focused on a clear target at which to direct his ample
talent for invective: "Crooked Hillary." And he brought an encyclopedic knowledge of damaging
material with which to attack her, gleaned from having masterminded Peter Schweizer's
best-selling 2015 book,
Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments
and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
(another Mercer-backed effort). The book
gave Trump an overarching theme in which to fit his attacks, one that the media, thanks partly
to Schweizer's and Bannon's efforts, was already predisposed to accept: that Clinton was
corrupt. And because Bannon's convulsive extremism was now setting the tone, no one would hold
him back. "It's not going to be a traditional campaign," he said shortly after his hiring.
It wasn't. The great test arrived on October 7, when David Fahrenthold, a reporter at the
Washington
Post,
was leaked outtake footage from a 2005 Trump appearance on the NBC
show
Access Hollywood.
"When you're a star, they let you do it," Trump told host Billy
Bush. "You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy."
It looked like Trump had finally said something that even he couldn't rebound from, and
Republican officials quickly began abandoning the campaign. "I am not going to defend Donald
Trump -- not now, not in the future," Paul Ryan told his House colleagues in a private call.
As
New York
reported
, Reince Priebus urged Trump to quit or "go down with a worse
election loss than Barry Goldwater's." Bannon stood firm, although even he feared Trump might
be finished. Still, he told an associate, it wouldn't be a total loss. "Our backup strategy,"
he said of Clinton, "is to f--- her up so bad that she can't govern. If she gets 43 percent of
the vote, she can't claim a mandate." Psyching himself up, he added, "My goal is that by
November 8, when you hear her name, you're gonna throw up."
Trump, who never apologized for any offense, took the unprecedented step of
expressing remorse
about the comments on the
Access Hollywood
tape in a hastily produced web video. "I
said it, I was wrong, and I apologize," he said to the camera. But at Bannon's urging, his
apology quickly morphed into an attack on the Clintons that made it clear he would not be
dropping out. "I've said some foolish things," he said, but "Bill Clinton has actually abused
women, and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed, and intimidated his victims. We will discuss
this more in the coming days. See you at the debate on Sunday." With Bannon by his side, Trump
would navigate the greatest crisis of his campaign by putting his foot on the gas. When I
reached Bannon to ask about the strategy for the upcoming debate, he didn't miss a beat:
"Attack, attack, attack, attack."
Bannon had long believed that Bill Clinton's sexual history and Hillary's alleged complicity
in covering it up was something that "has to be concentrated and brought up," as he'd once put
it. His original thought was that relitigating the scandals would demoralize a younger
generation of feminist women unfamiliar with the tawdry details. But with the
Access
Hollywood
tape, Bannon saw that injecting Clinton's accusers into the race would force the
media to devote attention to more than just Trump's damaging tape. The trick was to do it in a
way that couldn't be ignored. Watching Bill Cosby's public evisceration by his accusers the
year before, Bannon had noticed that their on-camera testimony was especially powerful because
most of the victims had been assaulted decades earlier and were now elderly women and thus
inherently sympathetic. Bannon thought a similar dynamic would apply to the Clinton
accusers.
On Sunday afternoon, 90 minutes before the start of the debate at Washington University in
St. Louis, word spread in the press corps that Trump was about to hold an event. As reporters
squeezed into a conference room, Trump was seated at the center of a makeshift dais
flanked by four women
well known to veteran political reporters: Kathleen Willey, Juanita
Broaddrick, Kathy Shelton, and Paula Jones. Willey, Broaddrick, and Jones had all accused Bill
Clinton of sexual assault or harassment; in 1975, a judge had appointed Hillary Clinton, then a
young lawyer, to defend a man accused of raping Shelton, who was then 12 years old.
After brief remarks from Trump, the women took turns defending him and assailing the
Clintons. The shock of what was unfolding prompted frenzied live coverage on cable news. As
cameras panned the room, they captured Bannon standing in the back, grinning wickedly. The
brazenness of Bannon's gambit, and the visual of Trump seated among Clinton's accusers, ensured
that the primary imagery on TV would cease to be the
Access Hollywood
footage.
A plan to seat the women at the front of the debate audience to rattle Clinton and assure
them a steady presence in the camera shot had to be scuttled. In the end, it didn't matter.
Bannon had always believed that Trump was his own greatest weapon. As 67 million people tuned
in to the debate, Trump waited for the inevitable
Access Hollywood
question and sprung
his counterattack. "If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse," he said. "Mine are words, and his
was action. His was -- what he's done to women, there's never been anybody in the history of
politics in this nation that's been so abusive to women Hillary Clinton attacked those same
women and attacked them viciously. Four of them are here tonight."
Outside the campaign, the Clinton-accuser gambit was seen as a transparently cynical ploy to
change the subject. But Trump's brain trust was seeing numbers that said attacking Clinton was
succeeding. A smattering of public polls indicated the same thing: More respondents improved
their opinion of Trump than of Clinton after watching the debate.
Then, within days of the debate,
multiple women came forward to accuse Trump of having groped or kissed them without their
consent
. The wave of new accusers put the campaign on a war footing. The distinction they
needed to draw, Bannon told staffers, was between Trump's "locker room" behavior and what he
alleged was Bill Clinton's sexually violent behavior. "This has nothing to do with consensual
sexual affairs and infidelities," Bannon said in a strategy meeting that week. "We're going to
turn him into Bill Cosby. He's a violent sexual predator who physically abuses women who he
assaults. And she takes the lead on the intimidation of the victims."
Trump seemed to relish the prospect of ramping up his attacks on Hillary. And then, with
just over a week to go until Election Day, he got an unexpected boost when FBI director James
Comey announced he was reopening the investigation into Clinton's private email server. Trump's
internal polls, which showed him already ascending before the Comey letter, now had him turning
sharply upward in every battleground state. Out on the stump, he ratcheted up his criticism of
Clinton. In speeches and ads, he channeled Bannon's conspiratorial worldview, accusing Clinton
of plotting "the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial
powers, her special-interest friends." When Trump won the election, the lesson the 45th
president took away from the campaign seemed to be that if he fought hard enough, he could
survive anything.
Just six months into his presidency, Trump's faith in that proposition is being tested. His
brief tenure has been shot through with turmoil, his legislative agenda is teetering on the
cusp of collapse, and Robert Mueller's special-counsel investigation is an ever-present source
of frustration. The Associated Press revealed that Trump's anger has reached a point where he
is yelling at television sets in the White House, upset by the tenor of his coverage.
For Bannon, though, things are looking up. Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris
climate accord was a sign that nationalism still holds sway, as was his July speech in Poland
warning of the decline of the West. The Supreme Court's decision in late June to allow the
administration's travel ban to
take partial effect
was another victory for Bannon, its principal architect. The House just
passed two immigration bills, and, White House officials say privately, Congress will soon act
on four more. Bannon's feud with Kushner has quieted down. And so far, while at least ten White
House officials and former aides, including Kushner, have retained lawyers in the special
counsel's probe, distancing themselves from Trump, Bannon is not among them.
Instead, he's back in the bunker alongside a boss who is often angry, always under fire,
and, on the matter of Russia, increasingly isolated from all but a handful of advisers and
family members. Early on, Bannon's war room displayed characteristic aggression, with Kasowitz
holding a press conference to slam Comey in response to the former FBI director's June 8
testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. "[It] is overwhelmingly clear that there
have been and continue to be those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this
administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged
communications," Kasowitz said. "Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these
leakers."
Many of Trump's current and former aides cheered this lunge for the jugular. "Kasowitz is a
junkyard dog, exactly the guy Trump needs in his corner right now," says Barry Bennett, a
former campaign adviser. In TV appearances, war-room attorney Jay Sekulow -- Trump's Lanny Davis -- suggested that Mueller is biased, a charge Trump amplified on Twitter by calling the
investigation a
"witch hunt"
and telling Fox News that he finds Mueller's long-standing relationship with
Comey "bothersome."
But those personal attacks diminished in late June, after John Dowd, a prominent Washington
attorney and veteran of the Justice Department, joined Trump's defense. References to a "war
room" have also been dropped for the more tempered "president's outside legal team." And on
June 28, Trump's lawyers decided to postpone filing a Justice Department complaint against
Comey for having helped leak memos about his conversations with Trump to reporters -- a move
Bloomberg News attributed to a new attitude of "professional courtesy" toward Mueller. "It
could become an adversarial relationship, but at present the legal team decided it was best to
hold off and not file those complaints," says Mark Corallo, the spokesman for the legal team.
Which is not to say that Bannon's bare-knuckled instincts have vanished, but rather that he's
come to understand that going after Mueller personally isn't the best move -- at least right
now.
Davis himself says this was a necessary course correction. "There is huge danger in
attacking Mueller directly," says Davis. "[White House counsel] Don McGahn, Bannon, and the
political side of the White House ought to be listening." For now, they seem to be. And at
least for the time being, Trump, too, has shifted his target from Mueller and Comey to Mika
Brzezinski and CNN.
One critical element of the Lanny Davis model, says Davis, is having a president who has a
firm enough grasp of the legal and political stakes that he's willing to focus on his day job
and let his lawyers do the talking for him. But even some of Trump's defenders admit that not
only is the president unlikely to show such deference, he is never more than a bad news cycle
away from firing Mueller.
"Bannon's a smart guy -- he knows the difference between success and political suicide," says
Davis. "But could he even stop him?" When it came to Comey, the answer was no. As Mueller
expands his team of investigators, the question now is how long Trump's advisers will be able
to dissuade him from going after the special counsel. "One thing that's always dangerous is
telling Donald Trump that he can't do something," says Roger Stone. "Because then he wants to
do it."
If Trump were to fire Mueller
, numerous Republicans say privately that they would break
with the president. "It would be a repeat of the 'Saturday Night Massacre' when Nixon fired
Archibald Cox," the Watergate special prosecutor, says Davis.
There's no question, though, who would lead the attack on Trump's critics if such a scenario
were to unfold. "At the end of the day," says Sam Nunberg, "the question is, are we going to
stand with Trump when he fires Mueller? Steve will do it."
"... The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's
conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling. ..."
"... The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess. ..."
"... Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That
was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement
the grid definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited
an infected site on a work computer. ..."
"... The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to
scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. ..."
"... for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that
his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole. ..."
When Hillary Clinton claimed "17 intelligence agencies" agree on Russian meddling in the third presidential debate, a host of media
outlets including The New York Times rated the claim as 100 percent true. Nine months later, those same outlets say the stat is obviously
false, and there's been a "simple" explanation as to why all along.
A closer look at how the claim survived and thrived over those nine months reveals a startling lack of skepticism in the press
when it comes to the Russia narrative. The truth is the great majority of the 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community
had nothing to do with the investigation and made no judgments about the matter.
"The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were
the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign," The New York Times now
reports
. "The rest were doing other work."
Strange admission for the paper, since its star political reporter recently
reiterated the false claim as she was in the middle of writing an article characterizing President Trump as stubbornly foolish.
"The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump's party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic
fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help him
get elected," Maggie Haberman wrote. Her story was later corrected to reflect the -- basic fact -- that only three agencies working
under the Director of National Intelligence contributed to the intelligence community's conclusion.
A few days later, the Associated Press
echoed that correction in a "clarification" bulletin acknowledging there's no truth to the claim the wire service had repeatedly
blasted out for publication to news outlets all over the world.
The bizarrely timed corrections put the media in a bit of a truth pickle, especially after Trump drew attention to the corrections
at a high-profile press conference in Poland. "They had to apologize, and they had to correct," he noted.
The New York Times, CNN and others quickly spun up articles and tweets aimed at steering the conversation away from this uncomfortable
truth about their proliferation of an outright false claim, and back to the more comfortable "isn't Trump an idiot?" narrative.
"17 intel agencies or four? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid," Politifact
wrote in a Thursday headline . "Trump still doesn't seem to believe his intelligence agencies,"
CNN blared .
The New York Times
took
it a step further , dismissing the truth of the claim as a "technicality" and then accusing Trump of spreading a "misleading"
narrative by correcting the record. Their headline on a story about Trump calling them out for pushing a bogus claim: "Trump Misleads
on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don't Need to Agree."
But that uncomfortable truth remains. The "17 intelligence agencies" embellishment is frighteningly easy to catch. A cursory glance
of the DNI website would show the truth. More importantly, the sheer length of time the falsehood stood in public record at the highest
echelons of media betrays an astounding lack of scrutiny on other points in the Russia narrative, which are often sourced to political
operatives and anonymous "officials."
Let's look at how this happened, and what it says about the media's overall credibility in the Russia collusion narrative, from
the top.
The claim can be traced straight back to candidate Clinton in the third presidential debate, remarking on Russian meddling a few
weeks after the DNI released a statement on the investigation. The press didn't demonstrate any interest in the number of agencies
that signed off on the Oct. 7 statement, until Clinton unleashed the "17" number in the debate (other than a CNN report
incorrectly claiming there are
19 intelligence agencies).
She was clearly trying to add some umpf to the DNI assessment and pour cold water on Trump's skepticism about Russia's attempt
to influence the election. She even repeated the number twice, firmly planting it in the record.
"I think that this is such an unprecedented situation," Clinton said. "We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere
in our election. We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks,
these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply
disturbing."
Trump took the bait.
"She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else," he replied, setting off a back and forth that would be reiterated
over and over in the press as evidence
he was in denial about Russian meddling. "I am quoting 17, 17 -- do you doubt?" Clinton said, and Trump responded definitively: "Our
country has no idea. Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it."
With that, Hillary's claim was up and off.
Journalists highlighted the talking point on Twitter as they covered the debate. And
the fact checks came rolling in.
The New York Times
,
Politico ,
ABC News ,
Politifact and PBS
all rated the claim as totally true the night of the debate. Before the night ended The New York Times was using Clinton's number
with authority in its reporting, saying
in a debate wrap up that Trump had "refused" to acknowledge "the unanimous conclusion of America's 17 intelligence agencies."
The following day the number popped up in reports from Politico and Defense One, quickly divorced from its context as a debate
talking point and transformed into an indisputable fact attached to Trump-Russia stories.
"The Office of the Director of National Intelligence collects and coordinates for the President the information and analysis from
the 17 agencies that make up U.S. national intelligence collection," a line
in the Defense One report on "Trump's Denial" stated.
Politico hadn't previously used the 17 figure in reporting on Russian meddling, but now
framed it as common
knowledge that Clinton had to "explain" to Trump: "As Clinton tried to explain that the Russian role is the finding of 17 military
and civilian intelligence agencies, Trump cut her off: 'I doubt it.'"
The fact checks continued to roll in. USA Today wrote a
particularly aggressive check on the claim headlined "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."
The article confidently asserted, "Clinton is correct."
All of these "fact checks" and reports were wrong, of course, as has since been made ultra clear. As The New York Times now concedes,
the truth about her claim was obviously false from the start. Any reporter capable of operating Google could have looked up a list
of the intelligence agencies in question, and ruled out almost half in just minutes.
The Department of Energy, Treasury and Drug Enforcement agencies can be dismissed out of hand. The military service intelligence
organizations can't legally operate on U.S. soil. Add the Coast Guard and we're tentatively at eight remaining intel agencies under
DNI. The Defense Intelligence Agency is also unlikely. Geospatial intelligence? Definitely not. National recon office? Not unless
a political influence campaign has something to do with a missile launch or natural disaster.
That leaves us with State Department intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA and NSA. Five tops, narrowed down
at the speed of common sense and Google.
Sure, the October DNI report was presented as the conclusion of the intelligence community, which does consist of 16 separate
agencies headed up by the DNI. At first glance, her claim might seem perfectly reasonable to someone unfamiliar with the makeup of
the intelligence community. But it's journalistic malpractice to do a fact-check level review of her claim that each agency separately
reviewed and judged the campaign, without so much as hinting at the obvious likelihood that most of them weren't involved.
Nevertheless, the claim persisted.
"All 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies believe the Russians are behind that leak," ABC host George Stephanopoulos told Trump
in
an October interview . "Why don't you believe it?"
"[Trump] has consistently denied any link between the hackers and the Kremlin, despite 17 intelligence agencies' claims to the
contrary," the Daily Beast
reported
that same day .
NBC News dropped Hillary's number nugget
in
a December report on the Obama White House asking the intelligence community for a dossier on the hacking assessment. The resulting
report would be shared with the public, White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco said at the time.
"Monaco used careful language, calling it a 'full review of what happened during the 2016 election process,'" NBC reported. "But
since the U.S. government has already said that all 17 intelligence agencies agree Russia was behind the hacks, Monaco's meaning
was clear."
Reuters, too, touted the number
in a December report that characterizes the DNI as a "17-agency strong" operation.
The declassified DNI report that followed in January
provided new details on the assessment that dumped ice-cold water on the "17 intelligence agencies agree" claim. The conclusion
was drawn only from the NSA, CIA and FBI, the report said. (The New York Times
conceded this in a break down of the report, although the claim would later make its way back into the paper's pages.)
A few months later former national intelligence director James Clapper reiterated the truth in a high-profile congressional hearing
about Russian interference, opting to correct the record without any partisan prompting.
"As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI -- not all 17 components of the intelligence
community," he said in his opening remarks. "Those three under the aegis of my former office."
And when Democrat Sen. Al Franken reiterated the false claim later in the hearing, Clapper once again made a point of correcting
the record.
"The intelligence communities have concluded -- all 17 of them -- that Russia interfered with this election," Franken said. "And
we all know how that's right."
Clapper interjected: "Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was, there were only three agencies directly
involved in this assessment, plus my office."
"But all 17 signed on to that?" Franken pressed.
"Well, we didn't go through that, that process," Clapper replied, again shooting down the claim as utterly false. "This was a
special situation because of the time limits we decided to restrict it to those three."
So not only was the assessment only made by three of the 16 agencies working under the DNI, but also Clapper indicated here that
none of the other agencies even signed off on the report before it was released. Yes, none of them dissented. But why would they,
since they didn't have independent evidence to suggest otherwise?
At this point in the life of Hillary's debate talking point, there's just no credible way to rate the claim as true. The DNI report
made the truth explicit, and Clapper had now reiterated that truth in a very public setting.
Yet just a few weeks later Clinton unabashedly reiterated the "17 agencies agree" claim
in an interview
with the tech outlet recode, and as if on cue the media once more began spreading it around.
"Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January," Clinton said. "17 agencies, all in
agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with 'high confidence'
that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election."
A little while later the bogus claim
showed up in an AP report , after The Daily Caller News Foundation
fact checked Clinton's claim in the interview and found it false. And then
twice
more in June before the "clarification" memo was published. Stephanopolous was back at it as well
in a June
11 interview with Republican Sen. Mike Lee. And then that Haberman report in The New York Times on the 25th echoing the claim,
which was rather strangely corrected four days later.
After all this, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta
actually accused Trump on Thursday of pushing "fake news" by saying the conclusion only came from "three or four" agencies. "Where
does that number come from?" Acosta asked.
The timing of the AP and NYT corrections are a bit of a mystery, but for whatever reason the press is now collectively saying
Trump is correct in his push back on the "17 agencies" claim. And that's got the narrative a bit tangled. After initially
doubling down on the "true" rating of Clinton's debate claim, Politifact is now bizarrely also rating the claim
mostly false in a separate fact check.
So we're left with that uncomfortable truth. The establishment press uncritically "vetted" and embraced a Clinton campaign talking
point designed to make Trump look foolish, divorced it of its political context and reiterated it word-of-God style for more than
six months -- all the time either ignoring or missing entirely easily obtainable information proving it false -- and then suddenly
reversed course on the claim weeks after it was unambiguously and authoritatively debunked.
We live in a world where r/the_donald -- a Reddit thread teeming with Trump supporters --
proved
more shrewd than The New York Times and the Associated Press when vetting an important claim about the Russia
investigation.
The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's
conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling.
Haberman and her ilk seem intent on casting Trump as a loner bordering on a nervous breakdown, maniacally watching the
news at all hours, hollering at staff and generally acting like a buffoon. And there's the almost daily implication that Trump personally
coordinated a hacking campaign with Russia, an implication grounded in no hard evidence despite a lengthy investigation.
The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess.
Sources often appear to be politically motivated, like Clinton. They show up in bizarre numbers, like "dozens" or "more than 30."
Anecdotes seem almost questionable at face value. An astonishing number of hastily reported or vaguely sourced "scoops" turn out
to be totally wrong when the subject of the story corrects the record.
In a report casting
the White House as fraught and bordering on collapse, Haberman wrote that Trump likes to stew over cable news in a bathrobe.
The White House refuted the anecdote
in no uncertain terms
the following day.
Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That
was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement
the grid
definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an
infected site on a work computer.
CNN reported that Former FBI Director James Comey
would
refute Trump's claim the director told him three separate times he was not personally under investigation. Comey did no such
thing. In fact he
corroborated Trump's account .
Just weeks after retracting a story
on a wealthy Trump associate and Russia, CNN insisted for days Trump would not ask Putin about Russian meddling during their
first meeting. Of course, the report depended on an anonymous source. Of course,
it was wrong
. One of the first things Trump did when he sat down with Putin was "press" him on the subject multiple times, according to Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson, who was in the room.
We could go on, but the point remains. The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian
meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. Sure, it's a "basic fact" Russia meddled
in the election. But for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should
be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole.
The facts they use to support these conclusions might as well be irrelevant.
Wishful thinking. What was so rational in launching Tomahawk missiles against Syrian airbase on fake
charges? Even on DNC hacking charges Trump moves closer to neocon views. And Polish speach
has nothing to do with detente with Russia. The fact that Haley is UN ambassador in
Trump administration demonstrates that quite well.
Notable quotes:
"... Too bad Trump is a total self–seeking asshole who will do nothing to better the lives of his citizens and is merely pursuing policies of corporate cronyism for his buddies. Deep State and Trump are just as bad as each other. We seem to be doomed. ..."
"... I pretty much doubt that Trump has the stature of really Standing up against the US Deep State. Kaennedy paid with his life! „Deep State USA: Dulles, Dallas and Devilish Games": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/deep-st... ..."
"... If President Trump is committed to pursue a more healthy relationship with Russia, a great first step would be to fire that ignorant, hysterical anti-Russia know-nothing Nikki Haley as UN Ambassador. If he does not do so, then his words of co-operation with Putin cannot be taken seriously. ..."
It was pleasing to see Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin greet each other cordially at the G20
summit. After their breakthrough first meeting, one hopes the two leaders have a personal
foundation for future cooperation.
At a later press conference in Hamburg, where the G20
summit was held, Russian President Vladimir Putin
said
he
believed there was a chance for restoring the badly frayed US-Russia relations. He praised
Trump for being thoughtful and rational. "The TV Trump is quite different from the real life
one," quipped Putin.
Meanwhile, the White House issued a statement hailing the two-hour discussion (
four times longer than originally scheduled
) between the two leaders as a good start to
working together on major world problems.
"No problems were solved. Nobody expected any problems to be solved in that meeting. But it
was a beginning of a dialogue on some tough problem sets that we'll begin now to work on
together,"
said
HR
McMaster, Trump's top national security adviser.
Trump deserves credit for the way he conducted himself. He met Putin on equal terms and with
respect. "It's an honor to meet you," said the American president as he extended a
handshake.
The much-anticipated encounter comes nearly seven months after Trump was inaugurated in the
White House. Over that period, large sections of the US media have run an unrelenting campaign
accusing Trump of being a Russian stooge and alleging that Putin ordered an interference
operation in last year's US election to benefit Trump.
Apart from innuendo and anonymous US
intelligence claims, recycled endlessly by dutiful news organizations, there is no evidence of
either Trump-Russia collusion or Putin-sanctioned
cyber
hacking
. Trump has dismissed the claims as "fake news", while Moscow has consistently
rejected the allegations as baseless Russophobia.
... ... ...
Under immense pressure, Trump has at times appeared to buckle to the US political
establishment with regard to projecting hostility towards Russia, as seen in the prosecution of
the covert war in Syria and renewed sanctions on Moscow.
The day before he met Putin in Germany, Trump was in Poland where he delivered a barnstorming
speech in Warsaw in which he accused Russia of "destabilizing countries", among other topics.
The American president also inferred that Russia was undermining "Western civilization". It was
provocative speech bordering on hackneyed Russophobia. It did not bode well for his imminent
meeting with Putin. A clash seemed to be coming, just as the US media had been cajoling.
... ... ...
Immediately following the constructive meeting between the leaders, the US media started
cranking up the Russophobia again. The US media are vents for Deep State hostility towards Trump
and his agenda for normalizing relations with Moscow.
The New York Times reported another breathless story about Trump's election campaign having
contact with "Kremlin-connected" people. CNN ran opinion pieces on how the president had fallen
into a trap laid by Putin.
It is hard to stomach this outlandish confabulation that passes for journalism. And it is
astounding that a friendly meeting between leaders of nuclear powers should not be received as a
good development.
But it shows that Trump his up against very powerful deep forces within the US establishment
who do not want a normalization with Russia. The US Deep State depends on confrontation, war and
endless militarism for its existence. It also wants a world populated by vassals over which US
corporations have suzerainty. An independent Russia or China or any other foreign power cannot
be tolerated because that upends American ambitions for unipolar hegemony.
... ... ...
President John F Kennedy was assassinated in broad daylight by the US Deep State because he
dared to seek a normalization and peaceful coexistence with Moscow. The Deep State does not want
normalization or peace with Russia or anyone else for that matter because there are too many
lucrative vested interests in maintaining the war machine that is American capitalism.
... ... ...
What needs to change is the US power structure through a democratic revolt. Until that
happens, any president in the White House is simply a hostage to the dark forces of the Deep
State.
lisacarso
· 9 hours ago
Yes they are indeed.
Too bad Trump is a total self–seeking asshole who will do nothing
to better the lives of his citizens and is merely pursuing policies of corporate cronyism for
his buddies. Deep State and Trump are just as bad as each other. We seem to be doomed.
Schlüter
· 6 hours ago
I pretty much doubt that Trump has the stature of really Standing up against the US
Deep State. Kaennedy paid with his life!
„Deep State USA: Dulles, Dallas and Devilish Games":
https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/deep-st...
follyofwar
· 5 hours ago
If President Trump is committed to pursue a more healthy relationship with Russia, a
great first step would be to fire that ignorant, hysterical anti-Russia know-nothing Nikki
Haley as UN Ambassador. If he does not do so, then his words of co-operation with Putin
cannot be taken seriously.
chris · 5 hours ago
Trump as victim? You have to be kidding.
He IS the president,he actually could get out on the White House lawn and blow the
whistle,or at least 'tweet' sneakily. World leader? At least post 'Don't do stupid shit.'
Obama had the temerity to refer to the Kennedy option'.This guy doesn't seem to lose any
sleep over the many thousands of deaths worldwide,including Americans, giving their lives
because Trump saw the job as a business opportunity.
And his dumb subjects run around blaming 'the Jews' [sounds like 1930's Germany doesn't
it?]
"... The first meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg evoked a wave of criticism from Western media, as a number of notable news outlets blasted the US President for his conduct during negotiations. ..."
The first meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg
evoked a wave of criticism from Western media, as a number of notable news outlets blasted the
US President for his conduct during negotiations.
At least several
prominent newspapers took a dim view of President Trump's handling of this meeting, claiming
that the Russian leader apparently managed to outplay and outsmart his US counterpart.
For example,
Die Welt
stated that it was clear to all professional observers that the meeting resulted
in Trump's capitulation.
In an apparent effort to underscore Trump's relative inexperience in foreign affairs, the
newspaper claims that the "political pro" Putin knocked out the newbie US President "by the
book."
The article's author also emphasized the fact that Putin paused for a moment before shaking
Trump's already extended hand.
The
Guardian
adds that while US politicians apparently felt relieved that Trump managed to
avoid "a major gaffe" during the meeting, it was "hardly cause for celebration."
"It's an indication of how rapidly our standards are falling when we're reasonably pleased
that President Trump has not made an obvious error," Thomas Countryman, former US acting
undersecretary for arms control and international security, remarked.
"... The United States has perfected the art of regime change operations. The US is the largest empire in world history with more than 1,000 military bases and troops operating throughout the world. In addition to military force, the US uses the soft power of regime change, often through 'Color Revolutions.' The US has been building its empire since the Civil War era , but it has been in the post-World War II period that it has perfected regime change operations. ..."
The United States has perfected the art of regime change operations. The US is the
largest empire in world history with more than 1,000 military bases and troops operating
throughout the world. In addition to military force, the US uses the soft power of regime
change, often through 'Color Revolutions.' The US has been
building
its empire since the Civil War era
, but it has been in the post-World War II period that
it has perfected regime change operations.
Have the people of the United States been the victims of regime change operations at home?
Have the wealthiest and the security state created a government that serves them, rather than
the people? To answer these questions, we begin by examining how regime change works and then
look at whether those ingredients are being used domestically.
Color Revolutions and Regime Change Operations
Almost from the start, the CIA's role has been more than intelligence gathering. It has been
a key player in putting in place governments friendly to the United States and conducting other
operations, e.g. the CIA is currently involved in drone strikes.
One of the first regime change operations of the CIA was Operation Ajax conducted in Iran,
and led by Kermit Roosevelt , the grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, who was president when the US
solidified its global empire ambitions. The CIA was founded in 1947 and the regime change coup
in Iran was 1953.
Greg Maybury writes in "Another
Splendid Little Coup
": "Placing to one side
an early dress rehearsal in Syria in 1949
, the Iran coup was the first post-War exercise
in regime change upon the part of Anglo-American alliance " Just
this month the US government released documents
showing the CIA and State Department's
planning and implementation of the coup against the democratically-elected prime minister of
Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh . This release
supplements one from
2013
that did not reveal the full role of the US in the coup.
The Iran coup was crude compared to more modern efforts but had the ingredients that have
become common – civil society protests against the government, media reports supporting
the protests, agents within the government supporting the coup and replacement of the
government with a US-friendly regime. The Iran coup may have been the most costly mistake in US
foreign policy because it
undermined
a secular democratic government in Iran
that could have been the example for the region.
Instead the US installed the brutal Shah of Iran, whose rule ended in the 1979 revolution, in
which, as Maybury reports, the US was also implicated because it felt the Shah had overstayed
his welcome.
The Iran coup was perceived as a great CIA success, so it was copied in other Middle Eastern
countries as well as countries in Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean. Regime change is
still a major tool of US foreign policy. There is a long-term ongoing coup campaign in
Venezuela, with its most recent episode last week in which a
helicopter attack on the Supreme Court was tied to the US DEA and CIA
. The US has allied
with oligarchs, supported violent protests and provided funds for the opposition, which has
also worked to undermine the Venezuelan economy -- a tactic the US has used in other coups, e.g.
the
coup of Allende in Chile
.
The
coup in Ukraine
, which the media falsely calls a 'democratic revolution,' was, as the head
of the 'private CIA' firm Stratfor says, "
the most blatant coup in history
." The CIA and State Department played the lead
roles.
Victoria
Nuland
, an assistant secretary of state under Clinton, bragged that the US spent $5
billion to build civil society opposition against a government that leaned toward Russia. The
government funded civil society opposition through
US AID, which is the open vehicle for what the
CIA
used to do covertly, along with the
National
Endowment for Democracy
. This funding was used to build oppositional civil society groups
and create destabilization. They focused on the issue of
corruption
, which
exists in every government, and built it up to a centerpiece for regime change. The US allied
with extremist right-wing groups in Ukraine.
The US has perfected regime change operations from the 1950s up through today. The standard
method of operation is finding an issue to cause dissent, building opposition in a well funded
civil society 'movement', manipulating the media, putting in place US friendly leaders and
blaming US opposition for the coup to hide US involvement. This approach is consistent no
matter which party is in power in the US.
The Kleptocratic Oligarch Coup In The United States
One difference in the US is that money plays an outsized influence in US elections . The
wealthy can buy the government they want through campaign donations and by anonymous spending
but the tools of color revolutions are still needed to legitimize the government. Legitimacy is
getting harder to buy. Many realize we live in
a mirage
democracy
. The
Associated
Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs reported
in 2016 the extent of the loss of legitimacy
of US government:
"Nine in 10 Americans lack confidence in the country's political system, and among a
normally polarized electorate, there are few partisan differences in the public's lack of
faith in the political parties, the nominating process, and the branches of government."
Civil society also has a strong role. John Stauber
writes
that
:
"The professional Progressive Movement that we see reflected in the pages of The Nation
magazine, in the online marketing and campaigning of MoveOn and in the speeches of Van Jones
, is primarily a political public relations creation of America's richest corporate elite,
the so-called 1%, who happen to bleed Blue because they have some degree of social and
environmental consciousness, and don't bleed Red. But they are just as committed as the right
to the overall corporate status quo, the maintenance of the American Empire, and the monopoly
of the rich over the political process that serves their economic interests."
Civil society groups created or aligned with the Democratic Party are defining the new form
of false-resistance as electing Democrats. The Democrats, as they have done throughout history
as the oldest political party, know how to
control movements and lead them into
ineffectiveness
to support the Democratic Party agenda. We described, in "
Obamacare:
The Biggest Insurance Scam in History
," how this was done skillfully during the health
reform process in 2009. This
new resistance is just another
tool to empower the elites,
not resistance to the oligarchic-kleptocrats that control both
parties. In fact, a major problem in progressive advocacy is the
funding ties
between
large non-profits and corporate interests. The corruption of money is seen in organizations
that advocate for corporate-friendly policies in
education
,
health care
,
energy and climate
,
labor
, and
other issues.
Color Revolution Tools Used In The US
Now the tools the US uses for regime change around the world are being used at home to
funnel activist energy and efforts into the Democratic party and electoral activities. In order
to resist this new "resistance" we need to be aware of it and how it operates. We need to see
through propaganda, such as RussiaGate, and attempts to manipulate the masses through scripted
events that are portrayed as organic, such as the recent "sit in" by Rep. John Lewis and Sen.
Cory Booker on the Capitol steps, or through highly emotional cultural content that portrays
the plutocratic parties as parties of the people. We have to remember that the root issue is
plutocracy and the US has two plutocratic parties, often referred to as "The Duopoly."
"... President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta. ..."
"... Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all? ..."
"... Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war and averting a new war in Korea. ..."
"... Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning. ..."
"... Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years. ..."
"... Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship. ..."
"... We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth province of Kosovo. ..."
"... Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others see us." ..."
"... Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so, and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing up for his country? ..."
"... Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can, this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go? ..."
"... I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one. ..."
"... Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes. ..."
"... These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate. Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for Israel and their efforts showed as much. ..."
"... Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or they're just playing into the narrative. ..."
"... Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently absurd. ..."
"... Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there. ..."
"... There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then. ..."
"... Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country. ..."
"... If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher EU. ..."
"... "Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016." What hacking? Proof? None. ..."
"... Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked (read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group of like-minded people " ..."
"... I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016 presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is. ..."
"... So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game? ..."
"... . . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike. It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike that told the FBI that it was the Russians. ..."
President Donald Trump flew off for his first meeting with Vladimir Putin -- with instructions
from our foreign policy elite that he get into the Russian president's face over his hacking in the
election of 2016.
Hopefully, Trump will ignore these people. For their record of failure is among the reasons Americans
elected him to office.
What president, seeking to repair damaged relations with a rival superpower, would begin by reading
from an indictment?
President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing
the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta.
President Kennedy did not let Russia's emplacement of missiles in Cuba in 1962 prevent him from
offering an olive branch to Moscow in his widely praised American University address of June 1963.
Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at
all?
Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war
and averting a new war in Korea.
Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring
about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning.
Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support
for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine,
a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.
Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all
its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship.
We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into
a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep
of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth
province of Kosovo.
Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance
and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others
see us."
Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so,
and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing
up for his country?
Looking about the world today, do we really need any more crises or quarrels? Do we not have enough
on our plate? As the Buddhist saying goes, "Do not dwell in the past concentrate the mind on the
present moment."
Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016. But what was
done cannot be undone. And Putin is not going to return Crimea to Kiev, the annexation of which was
the most popular action of his long tenure as Russian president.
As D.C.'s immortal Mayor Marion Barry once said to constituents appalled by his latest episode
of social misconduct: "Get over it!"
We have other fish to fry.
In Syria and Iraq, where the ISIS caliphate is in its death rattle, Russia and the U.S. both have
a vital interest in avoiding any military collision, and in ending the war. This probably means the
U.S. demand that Syrian President Assad be removed will have to be shelved.
Consider China. Asked by Trump to squeeze Pyongyang on its nuclear missile program, China increased
trade with North Korea 37 percent in the first quarter. The Chinese are now telling us to stop sailing
warships within 13 miles of its militarized islets and reefs in a South China Sea that they claim
belongs to them, and demanding that we cancel our $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan.
Hong Kong's 7 million people have been told their democratic rights, secured in Great Britain's
transfer of the island to China, are no longer guaranteed.
Now China is telling us to capitulate to North Korea's demand for an end to U.S. military maneuvers
with South Korea and to remove the THAAD missile system the U.S. has emplaced. And Beijing is imposing
sanctions on South Korea for accepting the U.S. missile system.
Meanwhile, the dispute with North Korea is going critical.
If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear warhead that
can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this or exercising a military
option that could bring nuclear war.
Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can,
this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
While, as is usual, I agree with Mr. Buchanan's foreign policy views which he again effectively
and convincingly expresses, I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making
a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence
to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures
by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one.
Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story
used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was
convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media
leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes.
Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.
These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for
someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate.
Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will
be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for
Israel and their efforts showed as much.
Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to
Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or
they're just playing into the narrative.
Besides, if a foreign country really did manage to subvert the US' democracy to such an extent,
that speaks volumes about the weakness of the US system, not its adversaries' malicious intents.
Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics
of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly
hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently
absurd.
"If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear
warhead that can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this
or exercising a military option that could bring nuclear war."
Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to
leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there.
"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.
But what was done cannot be undone."
There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there
is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible
evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag
cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then.
How come that Pat Buchanan repeats the media lies that the Russians hacked US election? So
far, this allegation is fact-free. Has he finally succumbed to the constant lies the corporate
media are spreading? He is undoubtedly aware of Nazi-Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels saying:
"One must only repeat a lie so long until the people believe it as true."
As the first pictures from this G-20-meeting show, Donald Trump was sidelined by Merkel. Autocrats
like the Chinese President, Erdogan, and Russias Putin were standing next to her, Donald Trump
has sidelined just before French's Macron.
It's funny that even the US political class regards Merkel as powerful. She is just a Stalinist
and a political opportunist who would even sacrifice her loved ones when it would suit her career.
The US should not be carried away and blinded by this made-up spin.
Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'
Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists
pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country.
I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians
did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?
Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him
at all?
exactly!
... ... ...
If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?
the irony is that Russia today is far more expressive of the ancient values of the West than
the zio-West of Merkel's Germany and Islamic France. Let along the home of Hollywood spiritual
sewage spilling out of the ZUSA.
If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable
with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher
EU.
I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians
did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?
Yes, that's an odd phrase, particularly as Mr. Buchanan has expressed incredulity at this sort
of accusation in the past. Perhaps he simply means that Americans' anger at Russia (which I think
he exaggerates; he seems to still believe the media have some actual contact with America) is
justified based on their beliefs?
The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that
all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic
emails – is false.
On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the
false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush
aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump
as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.
However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman's ridicule of Trump in
place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence
agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not
approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."
Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering
organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked
(read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent
analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group
of like-minded people "
I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016
presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left
and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain
more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is.
Let's make no mistake that neo-conservatism, liberal interventionism, Israelphilia and Russophobia
rule Washington, D.C. with an iron fist. Any elected leaders who don't play ball quickly find
themselves marginalized and under attack. Either Trump was playing us during the campaign with
his calls for warmer relations with Russia and a more humble foreign policy or he saw the writing
on the wall after taking office and surrendered without a fight.
I think Trump's loyalty to Israel trumps his loyalty to American first principles and that's
not good.
@KenH "Hacked the election" is a weasel phrase. You can go to shitlib sites and plenty of
them think that Putin changed votes by hacking voting machines. Of course, this hasn't been alleged,
let alone proved. The dishonest pundits using that phrase can claim they meant that Putin hacked
the DNC emails. There's also no evidence for this, but it's hard to prove or disprove (but given
that Podesta fell for a phishing scam, it could have been done by a 15 year old anywhere in the
world). The only thing they can credibly claim is that Russia "interfered" in the US elections
by their state media posting articles that the CIA disagrees with.
So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online
unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game?
from the web– No, The Russians Did Not Meddle in Our Election by Publius Tacitus
. . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine
the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting
that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike.
It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused
to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike
that told the FBI that it was the Russians.
Here's the problem with this: CrowdStrike's reputation is currently unraveling. Why? It seems
that CrowdStrike is as politically motivated as everyone else in Washington, D.C. The company
is itself an opponent of Vladimir Putin and Russia and was recently caught fabricating a report
that attempted to blame Russian hacking for problems with Urkainian military technology. .
.
@Ludwig Watzal Pat is an old USA conservative. The style of old USA conservatives is agree
with the opponent on all essentials of fact and value then remonstrate defensively. Perfect example:
"Yes, Putin hacked, but we have bigger fish to fry."
USA liberals were called "knee-jerkers," that is people whose liberal reaction is so automatic
it is brain-free. But old USA conservatives also have their "knee-jerk": this is accepting the
opponent's premises then quibbling.
"You're a racist!" "No, I'm certainly not, I swear."
"America is sexist!" "We are doing better lately. Salaries for women are showing progress."
"Putin hacked!" "Yes he did, but there are bigger fish to fry."
An old USA conservative would consider such replies as "fighting back"; but they are only whiny
protests in response to blows.
The old USA conservative style is dated and being replaced by styles more adversarial. Pat
the man is a decent guy and I wish him well.
Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support
for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government
in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.
Buchanan here exhibits his supericial knowledge of Ukrainian/Russian history. Large swaths
of Ukrainian territory never were under Russian hegemony until the middle part of the 20th century,
but were part and and parcel of other European states including the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
and the Hapsburg Empire. Also, insinuating that Trump need to cower in front of Putin during a
hypothetical question and answer series regarding some sort of U.S. directed plot against Russia
in Ukraine is also based on fluff and inuendo, and he should know better. Any 'cookies and milk'
support offered to Ukrainian patriots who paid for their new found freedom by sacrificing their
lives came long after altercations had already started on the Maidan. American ingenuity could
not have created a protest movement of this scope and magnitude, and Buchanan should know better:
"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016."
Pat,
You are just echoing and lending credence to the news media, including Fox News as well as
the power elite. This is not the first time you have done this.
I fail to understand why anyone would believe anything the security(spy) agencies promote. They
are incessant liars, as is most of our government. People should never take anything our government
says at face value .always demand proof.
@exiled off mainstreet " . I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making
a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story ."
@nickels Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'
Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists
pulling the strings.
I am truly disgusted with this country. "I am truly disgusted with this country."
this is pure McCarthyism, not "propaganda ville". Clapper and Brennan are the leaders of
Russiagate color revolution against Trump. And there is no countervailing force.
Notable quotes:
"... It wasn't until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly set the record straight in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three "contributing agencies" from which analysts were "hand-picked." ..."
"... The reference to "hand-picked" analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S. intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of "politicized" intelligence when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to hear. ..."
"... On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment. ..."
"... Finally, on June 25, the Times' hand was forced when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation, mocking Trump for "still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected." ..."
"... When this falsehood was called to the Times' attention, it had little choice but to append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... The Associated Press ran a similar "clarification" applied to some of its fallacious reporting repeating the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme. ..."
"... Though the Post did not identify the country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on the work of external organizations. ..."
"... Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike, which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council. ..."
"... But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny). Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia. ..."
"... The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely anti-Russian regime. ..."
"... The U.S. operation was spearheaded by neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John McCain. ..."
"... "On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met." Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a July 5 column , "Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge bstacle right now. It would legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in addition to its intervention in Syria." Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post editors. There is no doubt that Russia "invaded" Ukraine; "seized" Crimea; "meddled" in U.S. and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply treated as undeniable truths. ..."
"... As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration. ..."
"... With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in "propaganda-ville." ..."
Exclusive: The stakes in U.S.-Russia relations could not be higher – possible nuclear
conflagration and the end of civilization – but the U.S. mainstream media is still
slouching around in "propaganda-ville," says Robert Parry.
As much as the U.S. mainstream media wants people to believe that it is the Guardian of
Truth, it is actually lost in a wilderness of propaganda and falsehoods, a dangerous land of
delusion that is putting the future of humankind at risk as tension escalate with nuclear-armed
Russia.
This media problem has grown over recent decades as lucrative careerism has replaced
responsible professionalism. Pack journalism has always been a threat to quality reporting but
now it has evolved into a self-sustaining media lifestyle in which the old motto, "there's
safety in numbers," is borne out by the fact that being horrendously wrong, such as on Iraq's
WMD, leads to almost no accountability because so many important colleagues were wrong as
well.
Similarly, there has been no accountability after many mainstream journalists and
commentators falsely stated as flat-fact that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" concurred
that Russia did "meddle" in last November's U.S. election.
For months, this claim has been the go-to put-down whenever anyone questions the groupthink
of Russian venality perverting American democracy. Even the esteemed "Politifact" deemed the
assertion "true." But it was never true.
It was at best a needled distortion of a claim by President Obama's Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper when he issued
a statement
last Oct. 7 alleging Russian meddling. Because Clapper was the chief of the
U.S. Intelligence Community, his opinion morphed into a claim that it represented the consensus
of all 17 intelligence agencies, a dishonest twist that Democratic presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton began touting.
However, for people who understand how the U.S. Intelligence Community works, the claim of a
17-agencies consensus has a specific meaning, some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or
NIE) that seeks out judgments and dissents from the various agencies.
But there was no NIE regarding alleged Russian meddling and there apparently wasn't even a
formal assessment from a subset of the agencies at the time of Clapper's statement. President
Obama did not order a publishable assessment until December – after the election –
and it was not completed until Jan. 6, when a report from Clapper's office presented the
opinions of analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the National Security Agency – three agencies (or four if you count the DNI's office),
not 17.
Lacking Hard Evidence
The report also contained
no hard
evidence
of a Russian "hack" and amounted to a one-sided circumstantial case at best.
However, by then, the U.S. mainstream media had embraced the "all-17-intelligence-agencies"
refrain and anyone who disagreed, including President Trump, was treated as delusional. The
argument went: "How can anyone question what all 17 intelligence agencies have confirmed as
true?"
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in
the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit:
Office of Director of National Intelligence)
It wasn't until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly
set the record
straight
in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three
"contributing agencies" from which analysts were "hand-picked."
The reference to "hand-picked" analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S.
intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of "politicized" intelligence
when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to
hear.
On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed
Clapper's description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the
assessment.
Brennan said the Jan. 6 report "followed the general model of how you want to do something
like this with some notable exceptions. It only involved the FBI, NSA and CIA as well as the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It wasn't a full inter-agency community
assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies."
After this testimony, some of the major news organizations, which had been waving around the
"17-intelligence-agencies" meme, subtly changed their phrasing to either depict Russian
"meddling" as an established fact no longer requiring attribution or referred to the "unanimous
judgment" of the Intelligence Community without citing a specific number.
This "unanimous judgment" formulation was deceptive, too, because it suggested that all 17
agencies were in accord albeit without exactly saying that. For a regular reader of The New
York Times or a frequent viewer of CNN, the distinction would almost assuredly not be
detected.
For more than a month after the Clapper-Brennan testimonies, there was no formal
correction.
A Belated Correction
Finally, on June 25, the Times'
hand was
forced
when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation,
mocking Trump for "still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American
intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help
get him elected."
When this falsehood was called to the Times' attention, it had little choice but to
append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence "assessment was made by four
intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The
assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence
community."
The Associated Press ran a similar "clarification" applied to some of its fallacious
reporting repeating the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme.
So, you might have thought that the mainstream media was finally adjusting its reporting to
conform to reality. But that would mean that one of the pillars of the Russia-gate "scandal"
had crumbled, the certainty that Russia and Vladimir Putin did "meddle" in the election.
The story would have to go back to square one and the major news organizations would have to
begin reporting on whether or not there ever was solid evidence to support what had become a
"certainty" – and there appeared to be no stomach for such soul-searching. Since pretty
much all the important media figures had made the same error, it would be much easier to simply
move on as if nothing had changed.
That would mean that skepticism would still be unwelcome and curious leads would not be
followed. For instance, there was a head-turning reference in an otherwise typical Washington
Post take-out on June 25 accusing Russia of committing "the crime of the century." A reference,
stuck deep inside the five-page opus, said, "Some of the most critical technical intelligence
on Russia came from another country, officials said. Because of the source of the material, the
NSA was reluctant to view it with high confidence."
Though the Post did not identify the
country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian
culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on
the work of external organizations.
Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly
hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike,
which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology
officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the
anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council.
Relying on Outsiders
You might be wondering why something as important as this "crime of the century," which has
pushed the world closer to nuclear annihilation, is dependent on dubious entities outside the
U.S. government with possible conflicts of interest.
If the U.S. government really took this issue seriously, which it should, why didn't the FBI
seize the DNC's computers and insist that impartial government experts lead the investigation?
And why – given the extraordinary expertise of the NSA in computer hacking – is
"some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia [coming] from another country," one
that doesn't inspire the NSA's confidence?
But such pesky questions are not likely to be asked or answered by a mainstream U.S. media
that displays deep-seated bias toward both Putin and Trump.
Mostly, major news outlets continue to brush aside the clarifications and return to various
formulations that continue to embrace the "17-intelligence-agencies" canard, albeit in slightly
different forms, such as references to the collective Intelligence Community without the
specific number. Anyone who questions this established conventional wisdom is still crazy and
out of step.
For instance, James Holmes of Esquire
was
stunned
on Thursday when Trump at a news conference in Poland reminded the traveling press
corps about the inaccurate reporting regarding the 17 intelligence agencies and said he still
wasn't entirely sure about Russia's guilt. "In public, he's still casting doubt on the
intelligence community's finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election nearly nine months
after the fact," Holmes sputtered before describing Trump's comment as a "rant." So, if you
thought that a chastened mainstream media might stop in the wake of the
"17-intelligence-agencies" falsehood and rethink the whole Russia-gate business, you would have
been sadly mistaken.
But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails
and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny).
Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently
propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia.
Hating Putin
This pattern traces back to the earliest days of Vladimir Putin's presidency in 2000 when he
began to rein in the U.S.-prescribed "shock therapy," which had sold off Russia's assets to
well-connected insiders, making billions of dollars for the West-favored "oligarchs," even as
the process threw millions of average Russian into poverty.
But the U.S. mainstream media's contempt for Putin
reached new
heights
after he helped President Obama head off neoconservative (and liberal
interventionist) demands for a full-scale U.S. military assault on Syria in August 2013 and
helped bring Iran into a restrictive nuclear agreement when the neocons wanted to
bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.
The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup
in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely
anti-Russian regime.
The U.S. operation was
spearheaded
by
neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary
of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John
McCain.
Nuland was heard in an intercepted pre-coup phone call with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt
discussing who should become the new leaders and pondering how to "glue" or "midwife this
thing."
Despite the clear evidence of U.S. interference in Ukrainian politics, the U.S. government
and the mainstream media embraced the coup and accused Putin of "aggression" when ethnic
Russians in eastern Ukraine, called the Donbas, resisted the coup regime.
When ethnic Russians and other citizens in Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to
reject the coup regime and rejoin Russia – a move protected by some of the 20,000 Russian
troops inside Crimea as part of a basing agreement – that became a Russian "invasion."
But it was the most peculiar "invasion," since there were no images of tanks crashing across
borders or amphibious landing craft on Crimean beaches, because no such "invasion" had
occurred.
However, in virtually every instance, the U.S. mainstream media insisted on the most extreme
anti-Russian propaganda line and accused people who questioned this Official Narrative of
disseminating Russian
"propaganda"
– or being a "Moscow stooge" or acting as a "useful fool." There was no
tolerance for skepticism about whatever the State Department or the Washington think tanks were
saying.
Trump Meets Putin
So, as Trump prepares for his first meeting with Putin at the G-20 summit in Hamburg,
Germany, the U.S. mainstream media has been in a frenzy, linking up its groupthinks about the
Ukraine "invasion" with its groupthinks about Russia "hacking" the election.
In a July 3
editorial
, The Washington Post declared, "Mr. Trump simply cannot fail to admonish Mr.
Putin for Russia's attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. He must make clear the
United States will not tolerate it, period. Naturally, this is a difficult issue for Mr. Trump,
who reaped the benefit of Russia's intervention and now faces a special counsel's
investigation, but nonetheless, in his first session with Mr. Putin, the president must not
hesitate to be blunt.
"On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed
uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate
violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the
United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of
peace agreements are met." Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some
collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote
in a July 5
column
, "Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge bstacle right now. It would
legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in
addition to its intervention in Syria." Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post
editors. There is no doubt that Russia "invaded" Ukraine; "seized" Crimea; "meddled" in U.S.
and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply
treated as undeniable truths.
But seeing only one side to a story is where the U.S. mainstream media is at this point in
history. Yes, it is possible that Russia was responsible for the Democratic hacks and did
funnel the material to WikiLeaks, but evidence has so far been lacking. And, instead of
presenting both sides fairly, the major media acts as if only one side deserves any respect and
dissenting views must be ridiculed and condemned.
In this perverted process, collectively approved versions of complex situations congeal into
conventional wisdom, which simply cannot be significantly reconsidered regardless of future
revelations.
As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an
extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration.
With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of
soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should
hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in
"propaganda-ville."
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book,
America's Stolen
Narrative,
either in
print here
or
as an e-book (from
Amazon
and
barnesandnoble.com
).
"... However, in the wake of the Trump presidency, Deep State ..."
"... Whenever the Neocon cabal wants war, they pull out all the stops. However, in 2017, their New World Order ..."
"... As usual, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is coordinating the Russophobic propaganda campaign. The following data point explains why the CIA is always so effective in this endeavor and institutionally oriented to forever conduct war propaganda campaigns distinguished by extreme Russophobia. ..."
"... "General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany. In 1948, CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter assumed control of the so-called Gehlen Organization." ..."
Why so much naked propaganda and fake news directed against Russia especially since
Trump's election?
Executive Summary:
The Deep State now fears a "partnership for peace" between the United States and
Russia more than anything else. It used to fear the natural alliance between Russia and
Germany, since the Anglo-American domination of the world would be genuinely threatened by such
a powerful geopolitical relationship. The two World Wars were engineered to pit Russia against
Germany in order to preclude such a bloc from forming. The same Neocon cabal has been very busy
setting up Europe for yet a third world war by manipulating Merkel's government against Putin's
Kremlin. The immigrant crisis that began with the wars in the Middle East and North Africa was
literally manufactured to destabilize Europe as a precursor to World War III.
However, in the wake of the Trump presidency, Deep State now has a much bigger
'problem'-the very real prospect of a United States-Russian Federation entente. For this
reason, the CIA and MSM (mainstream media) have been beating the war drums like never
before. Russia has, overnight, become the whipping boy for everything wrong with the Democratic
Party as well as the scapegoat for every major intel security lapse in the USA. The U.S.
Intelligence Community will continue to fabricate patently false stories about the Trump
Administration with respect to Russia as pre-emptive strikes to make any meaningful dialogue
politically precarious. At the request of the CIA, the MSM will also continue to publish
fake news and naked propaganda about the same in order to greatly inflame anti-Russian
sentiment.
Whenever the Neocon cabal wants war, they pull out all the stops. However, in 2017,
their New World Order is under serious assault around the globe and war has become an
apparent necessity. Populist movements and nationalist revolutions are springing up like
mushrooms across the planet. After the controlled demolition of the global economic and
financial system, the cabal considers war - World War III - as their only real option (just as
they created the Great Depression to set the stage for World War II). Inciting extreme
Russophobia has always been their means to starting the real big wars. WW3 will be no
different, unless Trump and Putin meet in broad daylight and declare Deep State the
archenemy of We the People everywhere. That's the short story, now read on for the
extended back story.
________________________________________________________
The entire anti-Russian campaign is being quite deliberately orchestrated at the highest
echelons of Deep State and the U.S. Intelligence Community.[1]
As usual, the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) is coordinating the Russophobic propaganda campaign. The following data
point explains why the CIA is always so effective in this endeavor and institutionally
oriented to forever conduct war propaganda campaigns distinguished by extreme
Russophobia.
"General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the
Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the
Soviet zone of occupied Germany. In 1948, CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter assumed control of
the so-called Gehlen Organization." (Source:
www.cia.gov )
... ... ...
The central organizing principle , which is always followed religiously by the secret NWO
ruling cabal, concerns the strict maintenance of the perpetual war economy .
Toward that end, world peace can never be achieved. Rather, only the false notion that peace
may be attained - at some magical moment in the future - is ever projected.
Consequently, the imaginary split between East and West is always exploited to the max by
the ruling cabal. The East is just far and foreign enough relative to the West that it can
always be successfully set up as the [fictitious] bogeyman.
... ... ...Clinton
and Podesta
As always, there are several levels of intrigue going on simultaneously whenever Deep
State undertakes such an all-consuming global operation as the "Russian hack" psyop. The
sheer domination of the daily news cycle by "Russia this; Russia that" is always a reflection
of what TPTB really do fear the most. However, there is also a purely political point being
scored with this completely contrived Russophobia black op.
Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign chairman was John Podesta. Both Clinton and Podesta have
gone down in U.S. presidential election history as the two of the biggest losers of all time.
Bear in mind that this was Clinton's second humiliating loss after being blindsided by Barack
Obama in 2008. Not only did these two very bad losers need a very good excuse for all the livid
donors, they were also desperate for a story that would pacify their ultra-sensitive and
still-crying liberal base.
There are actually multiple reasons why these two characters required the "excuse of the
millennium" as to why they just got trounced by Trump. The very best they could come up
with was the "Russian election hack". This false accusation led to the baseless conclusion that
the election was hacked by the Russians and, therefore, the Democrats were powerless in defeat,
even though no such thing happened.
This gave Podesta, especially, something very BIG to talk about at a time when his direct
involvement with Pizzagate was being virally exposed in the worldwide Alt Media, and
then to a lesser extent by the MSM. Once Pizzagate was exposed as Podesta's Achilles'
heel, he became like a wounded animal thrashing about in sheer desperation. This is when the
anti-Russian campaign was really racheted up because the very future of the Democratic Party
was hanging in the balance as was his political fate.
Clinton also needed to blame anyone but herself, being the most inferior and corrupt,
caustic and unlikeable, offensive and dangerous, mean-spirited and vengeful presidential
candidate in U.S history. How she ever even got the nomination can only be explained by the
staunch support she received from the warmongering Neocons. They prepared her over the course
of her entire career to be the POTUS who would wage war on Russia, even if it meant going
nuclear on them.
Most expediently, the concocted "Russian hacking" narrative by Podesta perfectly plays into
the Neocon machination to provoke Russia into a regional war (e.g. Ukraine) on the way to
triggering a full-scale WW3. The war propaganda also feeds into their desire for massive war
profiteering in the form of gun running, human trafficking, drug smuggling, artifact black
marketing, oil theft and other illicit enterprises which are easily covered up in the fog of
war.
Lastly, this "Russian hacking" approach, the Neocons hope, will afford them the opportunity
to again take back the Motherland from the Russian people. The Neocon cabal longs for the day
when they can complete their Russia exploitation project via their oligarch agents of predatory
capitalism and the draconian application of neoliberal economics. What follows is the back
story to this multi-decade conspiratorial movement that has brought so much death and
destruction to Russia for a century, as well as to the world-at-large. STRATFOR Chief Reveals Zio-Anglo-American Plot For
World Domination
The bottom line here is that neither Clinton nor Podesta would take any blame whatsoever for
their epic failure. Clinton herself had issued many anti-Russian screeds during the debates in
order to smear Trump so it was a very convenient excuse when they were soundly defeated at the
polls. It's a well known fact that criminally insane psychopaths will never assume
responsibility for their misconduct and/or unlawful actions. When such bad actors enter
politics, their incorrigible criminal behavior mixes with those of similar ilk, and then all
hell can break loose as it is across America today. This link explains the surreptitious
process of ponerization in much greater detail: PONERIZATION: How the American Republic was taken
over by political cliques of criminally insane psychopaths
Deep State
Because of so many unanticipated eventualities, the agents of Deep State are
working triple time to sow seed of chaos and confusion everywhere and anywhere. It's as though
Pandora's box has been opened in every nation on Earth wherein each is now plagued with so much
political pandemonium and social mayhem, economic instability and financial insecurity.
In light of this rapidly devolving predicament, it's more essential than ever for President
Trump and President Putin to meet face-to-face in order to meet this extraordinary global
challenge. The world is truly at a crossroad: it can follow the Neocons to more war or the
righteous leaders to an enduring peace.
The current generation has never witnessed two presidents of the 2 superpowers willing to
sit down with each other in a mutually respectful manner. This alone bodes well for humanity;
now, if only they can be compelled by their good conscience to speak to each other as members
of the universal brotherhood.
Remember, Deep State knows that it will be like the Titanic colliding with the
iceberg should Trump and Putin cooperate to expose the real "Beast" that has terrorized the
planet for so long. And Deep State will be the Titanic. Should enough people wake up
to this unfolding reality, everything can change in a day and a night. There is nothing so
strong and formidable as people power in this age of populist movements and authentic
revolutions. Therefore, the real mission here is to enlighten as many people as possible before
things really get so out of control that we move past the point of no return.
Trump cannot allow a fake Russian conspiracy to keep him from his stated mission. He said
many times on the campaign trail that there was no reason not to make peace with Russia. And
Trump asked why anyone would ever want war with the nuclear superpower. Putin is his own man
and quite willing to meet with Trump. The vast majority of his people only want peace and good
will between the two nations.
"... ... The only issue where observers think a deal could be made is President Barack Obama's decision
in December to shut down Russian Embassy compounds in Maryland and on Long Island, New York. The Kremlin
emphasized this week that it has shown remarkable restraint by failing to respond tit-for-tat and warned
that its patience is running out. ..."
"If Putin comes to the conclusion that even if Russia and the U.S. reach agreement, Trump would be
unable to implement it for domestic policy reasons, he would lose interest in seeking an agreement,"
said Dmitri Trenin, the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center.
... ... ...
Russia and the U.S. have struggled to even set a specific time for Friday's meeting and the White
House says there's "no specific agenda" for it. When the two presidents finally sit down for a talk,
sharp differences remain on a wide range of issues, from Syria and the Ukrainian crisis to nuclear
arms control.
While Trump has said the U.S. and Russia could pool efforts to fight the Islamic State group in
Syria, Moscow's firm support for Syrian President Bashar Assad makes any agreement unlikely.
Moscow responded angrily when Trump ordered a missile strike on a Syrian base in April after a
chemical attack blamed on Assad's forces, and was also vexed by the U.S. downing of a Syrian warplane
in June. After last month's incident, the Russian military suspended a hotline with the U.S. to prevent
mid-air incidents and warned that it would track U.S.-led coalition aircraft as potential targets
over Syria.
And when the White House warned last week that Assad was preparing for another chemical
attack and would "pay a heavy price" if he launches it, Russia responded by offering the
Syrian ruler a tour of its air base.
Even though the Russian and U.S. militaries in Syria have worked out a way to avoid collisions,
the situation could grow more unstable if Putin and Trump fail to get along, Trenin warned.
Bitter differences over Ukraine haven't been resolved. Some U.S. lawmakers have been pushing the
White House to approve the delivery of weapons to the Ukrainian military in response to Moscow's
support for separatists in eastern Ukraine - a move that would cross a red line for the Kremlin.
... The only issue where observers think a deal could be made is President Barack Obama's
decision in December to shut down Russian Embassy compounds in Maryland and on Long Island, New York.
The Kremlin emphasized this week that it has shown remarkable restraint by failing to respond tit-for-tat
and warned that its patience is running out.
Update: As part of the 2+ hour discussion between presidents Trump and Putin,
AP reports that the Russian president asked for "proof and evidence" of Moscow's alleged interference
in the 2016 election which Russia denies . The request was made after Trump confronted Putin about
Moscow's election meddling during their first face-to-face meeting in Germany on Friday, according
to Rex Tillerson who was present in the meeting. The secretary of state told reporters afterward
that Trump opened the conversation by "raising the concerns of the American people regarding Russian
interference in the 2016 election."
Putin once again denied Russian involvement, Tillerson said, but Trump "pressed" him on the matter
"on more than one occasion."
'President Putin denied such involvement as I think he has in the past,' he continued.
The Russians, speaking after the meeting, claimed that Trump accepted the denial - but Tillerson
did not. Instead he said the issue may simply be an 'intractable disagreement.' Tillerson also said
the Russians pushed Trump for proof and evidence of meddling, something which the president himself
had doubted in public as recently as Thursday.
"The president at this point pressed him and felt like at this point, let's talk about how do
we go forward,' Tillerson said.
Trump and Putin agreed to explore a "framework" around which they can work to better understand
these types of cyberthreats, the U.S. diplomat said.
"The two leaders agreed that this is a substantial hindrance on the ability of us to move Russian-U.S.
relationships forward and agreed to exchange further work ?regarding commitments of noninterference
in the affairs of the United States and our democratic process as well as those of other countries,"
Tillerson said. "So more work to be done in that regard."
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, who was in the meeting, said afterward that Trump accepted
Putin's assurances that Russia didn't interfere in the election. But Tillerson, who has publicly
called out Russia for election interference in the past, said he was 'not dismissing the issue in
any way' and did not echo that language.
The secretary of state acknowledged that Putin's insistence that Russia did not interfere would
leave the two countries at an impasse, at least for now. "It's not clear to me that we will ever
come to some agreed-upon resolution of that question between the two nations," he said.
"So the question is, what do we do now?"
We are confident that the US press, which will not let this topic drop, will come up with some
suggestions.
* * *
Earlier
Following their first ever, 2+ hour meeting which was originally supposed to last only 30-40 minutes,
the question on everyone's mind was what did the two discuss.
So, in addition to the previously discussed ceasefire agreement in Southwest Syria unexpectedly
announced by the two nations, speaking at the beginning of his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe, Vladimir Putin said that during his first meeting with US President Donald Trump, the
two discussed Syria, Ukraine, counterterrorism, and drumroll, the "fight against cyber crime. "
"I had a very lengthy conversation with the President of the United States, there were a lot of
issues such as Ukraine, Syria, other problems, some bilateral issues", according to
Interfax news agency . "We again returned
to the issues of fighting terrorism and cybersecurity," Putin added.
Elaborating after the meeting, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump repeatedly pressed
Putin on the matter over the course of their meeting (see below for details).
Putin denied Russia's involvement, and according to a parallel comment from Russia's Sergey Lavrov,
" Trump accepted Putin's assurance of no election hacking ."
Or as Interfax put it:
TRUMP ACKNOWLEDGES ANTI-RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN IN U.S. ALREADY LOOKING ODD, THAT HE ACCEPTS PUTIN'S
STATEMENTS ON THIS MATTER - LAVROV: IFX
However, it appears Lavrov may have taken some artistic liberty, because according to NBC's chief
White House correspondent, one administration official has said Lavrov's comment is " not accurate
"
Pushback already from Trump administration: one official tells
@NBCNews Lavrov's "not accurate" w/this
comment --> https://t.co/URIsFPQYWT
"A cease-fire has been entered into," U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters. This
is the "first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria," he said.
Until now, Putin and Trump had only spoken on the phone. They were not alone: Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson were also present at the talks.
* * *
Earlier, during the press photo session, Trump told the media that "President Putin and I have
been discussing various things, and I think it's going very well."
"We've had some very, very good talks, we are going to have a talk now and obviously that will
continue," Trump added, saying there are hopes of "a lot of very positive things happening."
"It's an honor to be with you, thank you," Trump concluded, offering his hand to Putin.
"I'm delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr. President," Putin countered. "And I hope,
as you have said, our meeting will yield positive result."
I think a 30 minute meeting that turned into a 2 hour meeting with Putin is much better than the
war with Russia that Hitlery had planned for us. Getting along with Russia is a good thing.
That was just Kabuki theater, really. If Russia had hacked the election, the NSA and the CIA would
have gone back through all of their stored data and found the evidence of it and crucified Trump
and probably taken us to war.
... the planned 30-40-min meeting stretched to 2+ hours perhaps so they could talk about how
to "carve" Syria into various "states" (since the US already has a modern airport in the Northern
reaches of the beleaguered and oppressed sovereign country without the consent and permission
of Syria's Al Assad >>>
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960415000266
) ...
... and how not to hit any of their "flying objects" (jets and drones) trying to keep their
respective MIC and banksters happy funding all these war toys ...
... and the oppressors, at the behest of their (((Red Shield))) masters and its BIS central
banks' ownership of all worldwide central banks (with the exception of Iran, Syria, North Korea
and Cuba), might just be pulling the necessary strings on how to divide the residual loot they'd
get when Syria falls ...
... the ((( Red Shield snake ))) is poised to strike again ...
I have said it before and will say it again, if the NeoCons and NeoLibs fail to find any Russian
State Sanctioned evidence of election tampering or collusion then I would expect a trade deal
with Russia within a year of two. Always better to have Boardroom Wars instead of Hot Wars. For
the down voters may I remind you that Japan attacked the US, US was at war with Germany, do I
need to mention Vietnam. All foes at one time and now trading partners.
Clinton chairman John "Pizza Man" Podesta tells Trump: 'Get a grip'
Mr Podesta hit back in seven
tweets, branding Mr Trump a "whack job".
"Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI
and the CIA Disgraceful!" Mr Trump tweeted on Friday morning from Hamburg.
US canceling the 1902 trade agreement. Metal and other material embargo. Oil and gas embargo.
Then the open sea policy after non-declared economic war started in '38. Kind of like bombing
other countries and having the welcome mat out for them. Sanctions/embargoes are acts of war.
No lasting peace or deep cooperation between the US and Russia will be permitted, until the Khazariabs
approve it, bless it and put their logo (with a micro tax) on it.
I think that CNN is getting its pee-pee slapped pretty hard right now. It has incurred the wrath
of the internet hate machine and its ratings are sliding into the shitter on the eve of a corporate
buyout of its parent company. I'd say that there are pretty good odds that CNN will either not
exist in the near future, or it will exist in name only in the same way that Communist China is
no longer actually Communist.
Putin just handed him the photos of when Bill Clinton "gave a lecture" there for $2 million innturn
for Hillary's handing the Russians 20% of American uranium.
Photos probably show a dozen mixed
midgets peeing on Bill as he has sex with some Russian farm animals.
"It's an honour to be with you, thank you" - Trump to Putin. Now watch Pedo-desta and Mad Maxine
claim this is 'all the proof they need' that Trump is colluding with Putin.
"CNN is reporting that Trump gave Alaska back to Russia during this meeting"
I think
this is fake news. /s/s
If Alaska becomes Russian territory again then Kim's missles will only be able to threaten
Russia. How the hell will CNN beat the war drums for the MIC ?
...and the military industrial complex. Who do you think whispered in First Lady's ear to get
meeting ended?
TILLERSON SAYS NEITHER LEADER WANTED TO STOP MEETING, U.S. FIRST LADY CAME IN AT ONE POINT TO
TRY TO GET THEM TO CONCLUDE: RTRS
Yes, indeed they have. After organizing and taking over Russia in 1917 during the Bolshevik revolution,
when poor Russians had to undergo tremendous suffering caused by the most horrid scum imaginable,
they now know the truth will soon come out. Everything one needs to know.
I'd say it was more likely the people profitting from vast sums of money channelled into the US
military-industrial complex. So many jobs also rely on it that it has become an impossible to
kill program.
For that money the US gets a navy ready at any time to defeat imperial Japan again,
and an army poised to push the Soviet hordes back in western Europe. It's absurd, like a Coyote
cartoon where he is still standing but the ground beneath him has disappeared. Trump is smart,
he can take on the mainstream media, the democrats and the republicans, but he cannot take on
the military industrial complex at the same time and he knows it, whether he can ever or wants
to is the real question.
If Trump left office with the next president no longer beholden to the military industrial
complex, then he would be the greatest US president since George Washington.
So the 30 minute meeting turned into 2 hours? That's good, it means they got on well. Putin is
known to cut meetings short if he finds it's a waste of time.
<<So the 30 minute meeting turned into 2 hours? That's good, it means they got on well. >>
Putin
and Trump enjoy talking to strong leaders, not limp wristed pussies. Even Condy Rice said Soweeto
is considered a 'weak man' by foreign leaders. I guess she's being polite and at least called
him a "man" instead of a tranny.
When will the "McCain" mindset toward Russia end? That being, if we win they lose and vice versa.
Why the US and Russia could not/should not team up to stand against China and both win? We have
so much more with the Russians as a people than we do with the Chinese, as do they.
"... Recent hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees reflected the rising tide of Russian-election-hacking hysteria and contributed further to it. Both Democrats and Republicans on the two committees appeared to share the alarmist assumptions about Russian hacking, and the officials who testified did nothing to discourage the politicians. ..."
"... The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a record of spreading false stories about alleged Russian hacking into US infrastructure , such as the tale of a Russian intrusion into the Burlington, Vermont electrical utility in December 2016 that DHS later admitted was untrue. There was another bogus DHS story about Russia hacking into a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
"... So, there's a pattern here. Plus, investigators, assessing the notion that Russia hacked into state electoral databases, rejected that suspicion as false months ago. Last September, Assistant Secretary of DHS for Cybersecurity Andy Ozment and state officials explained that the intrusions were not carried out by Russian intelligence but by criminal hackers seeking personal information to sell on the Internet. ..."
"... Illinois is the one state where hackers succeeded in breaking into a voter registration database last summer. The crucial fact about the Illinois hacking, however, was that the hackers extracted personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and that none of the information was expunged or altered. ..."
"... "Any time you more carefully monitor a system you're going to see more bad guys poking and prodding at it," he observed, " because they're always poking and prodding." [Emphasis added] ..."
"... Reagan further revealed that she had learned from the FBI that hackers had gotten a user name and password for their electoral database, and that it was being sold on the "dark web" – an encrypted network used by cyber criminals to buy and sell their wares. In fact, she said, the FBI told her that the probe of Arizona's database was the work of a "known hacker" who had been closely monitored "frequently." ..."
"... The sequence of events indicates that the main person behind the narrative of Russian hacking state election databases from the beginning was former FBI Director James Comey. In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, Comey suggested that the Russian government was behind efforts to penetrate voter databases, but never said so directly. ..."
"... The media then suddenly found unnamed sources ready to accuse Russia of hacking election data even while admitting that they lacked evidence. The day after Comey's testimony ABC headlined , "Russia Hacking Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrating 4." The story itself revealed, however, that it was merely a suspicion held by "knowledgeable" sources. ..."
"... But that claim of a "likely" link between the hackers and Russia was not only speculative but highly suspect. The authors of the DHS-ODNI report claimed the link was "supported by technical indicators from the US intelligence community, DHS, FBI, the private sector and other entities." They cited a list of hundreds of I.P. addresses and other such "indicators" used by hackers they called "Grizzly Steppe" who were supposedly linked to Russian intelligence. ..."
"... But the highly classified NSA report made no reference to any evidence supporting such an attribution. The absence of any hint of signals intelligence supporting its conclusion makes it clear that the NSA report was based on nothing more than the same kind of inconclusive "indicators" that had been used to establish the original narrative of Russians hacking electoral databases. ..."
"... Russian intelligence certainly has an interest in acquiring intelligence related to the likely outcome of American elections, but it would make no sense for Russia's spies to acquire personal voting information about 90,000 registered voters in Illinois. ..."
Cyber-criminal efforts to hack into U.S. government databases are epidemic, but this ugly reality
is now being exploited to foist blame on Russia and fuel the New Cold War hysteria
Recent
hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees reflected the rising tide of Russian-election-hacking
hysteria and contributed further to it. Both Democrats and Republicans on the two committees appeared
to share the alarmist assumptions about Russian hacking, and the officials who testified did nothing
to discourage the politicians.
On June 21, Samuel Liles, acting director of the Intelligence and Analysis Office's Cyber Division
at the Department of Homeland Security, and Jeanette Manfra, acting deputy under secretary for cyber-security
and communications, provided the main story line for the day in testimony before the Senate committee
- that efforts to hack into election databases had been found in 21 states.
Former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap also endorsed
the narrative of Russian government responsibility for the intrusions on voter registration databases.
But none of those who testified offered any evidence to support this suspicion nor were they pushed
to do so. And beneath the seemingly unanimous embrace of that narrative lies a very different story.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a record of spreading false stories about alleged
Russian hacking into US infrastructure , such as the tale of a Russian intrusion into the Burlington,
Vermont electrical utility in December 2016 that DHS later admitted was untrue. There was another
bogus DHS story about Russia hacking into a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.
So, there's a pattern here. Plus, investigators, assessing the notion that Russia hacked into
state electoral databases, rejected that suspicion as false months ago. Last September, Assistant
Secretary of DHS for Cybersecurity Andy Ozment and state officials explained that the intrusions
were not carried out by Russian intelligence but by criminal hackers seeking personal information
to sell on the Internet.
Both Ozment and state officials responsible for the state databases revealed that those databases
have been the object of attempted intrusions for years. The FBI provided information to at least
one state official indicating that the culprits in the hacking of the state's voter registration
database were cyber-criminals.
Illinois is the one state where hackers succeeded in breaking into a voter registration database
last summer. The crucial fact about the Illinois hacking, however, was that the hackers extracted
personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and that none of the information was expunged
or altered.
The Actions of Cybercriminals
That was an obvious clue to the motive behind the hack. Assistant DHS Secretary Ozment testified
before the House Subcommittee on Information Technology on Sept. 28 ( at 01:02.30 of the video )
that the apparent interest of the hackers in copying the data suggested that the hacking was "possibly
for the purpose of selling personal information."
Ozment 's testimony provides the only credible motive for the large number of states found to
have experienced what the intelligence community has called "scanning and probing" of computers to
gain access to their electoral databases: the personal information involved – even e-mail addresses
– is commercially valuable to the cybercriminal underworld.
That same testimony also explains why so many more states reported evidence of attempts to hack
their electoral databases last summer and fall. After hackers had gone after the Illinois and Arizona
databases, Ozment said, DHS had provided assistance to many states in detecting attempts to hack
their voter registration and other databases.
"Any time you more carefully monitor a system you're going to see more bad guys poking and prodding
at it," he observed, " because they're always poking and prodding." [Emphasis added]
State election officials have confirmed Ozment's observation. Ken Menzel, the general counsel
for the Illinois Secretary of State, told this writer, "What's new about what happened last year
is not that someone tried to get into our system but that they finally succeeded in getting in."
Menzel said hackers "have been trying constantly to get into it since 2006."
And it's not just state voter registration databases that cybercriminals are after, according
to Menzel. "Every governmental data base – driver's licenses, health care, you name it – has people
trying to get into it," he said.
Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan told Mother Jones that her I.T. specialists had detected
193,000 distinct attempts to get into the state's website in September 2016 alone and 11,000 appeared
to be trying to "do harm."
Reagan further revealed that she had learned from the FBI that hackers had gotten a user name
and password for their electoral database, and that it was being sold on the "dark web" – an encrypted
network used by cyber criminals to buy and sell their wares. In fact, she said, the FBI told her
that the probe of Arizona's database was the work of a "known hacker" who had been closely monitored
"frequently."
James Comey's Role
The sequence of events indicates that the main person behind the narrative of Russian hacking
state election databases from the beginning was former FBI Director James Comey. In testimony to
the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, Comey suggested that the Russian government was behind
efforts to penetrate voter databases, but never said so directly.
Comey told the committee that FBI Counterintelligence was working to "understand just what mischief
Russia is up to with regard to our elections." Then he referred to "a variety of scanning activities"
and "attempted intrusions" into election-related computers "beyond what we knew about in July and
August," encouraging the inference that it had been done by Russian agents.
The media then suddenly found unnamed sources ready to accuse Russia of hacking election data
even while admitting that they lacked evidence. The day after Comey's testimony ABC headlined , "Russia
Hacking Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrating 4."
The story itself revealed, however, that it was merely a suspicion held by "knowledgeable" sources.
Similarly, NBC News headline announced, "Russians Hacked Two US Voter Databases, Officials Say."
But those who actually read the story closely learned that in fact none of the unnamed sources it
cited were actually attributing the hacking to the Russians.
It didn't take long for Democrats to turn the Comey teaser - and these anonymously sourced stories
with misleading headlines about Russian database hacking - into an established fact. A few days later,
the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff declared that there was
"no doubt" Russia was behind the hacks on state electoral databases.
On Oct. 7, DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement
that they were "not in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian government." But only
a few weeks later, DHS participated with FBI in issuing a "Joint Analysis Report" on "Russian malicious
cyber activity" that did not refer directly to scanning and spearphishing aimed of state electoral
databases but attributed all hacks related to the election to "actors likely associated with RIS
[Russian Intelligence Services]."
Suspect Claims
But that claim of a "likely" link between the hackers and Russia was not only speculative but
highly suspect. The authors of the DHS-ODNI report claimed the link was "supported by technical indicators
from the US intelligence community, DHS, FBI, the private sector and other entities." They cited
a list of hundreds of I.P. addresses and other such "indicators" used by hackers they called "Grizzly
Steppe" who were supposedly linked to Russian intelligence.
But as I reported last January, the staff of Dragos Security, whose CEO Rob Lee, had been the
architect of a US government system for defense against cyber attack, pointed out that the vast majority
of those indicators would certainly have produced "false positives."
Then, on Jan. 6 came the "intelligence community assessment" – produced by selected analysts from
CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and devoted almost entirely to the hacking of e-mail of the
Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. But it included
a statement that "Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple state
or local election boards." Still, no evidence was evinced on this alleged link between the hackers
and Russian intelligence.
Over the following months, the narrative of hacked voter registration databases receded into the
background as the drumbeat of media accounts about contacts between figures associated with the Trump
campaign and Russians built to a crescendo, albeit without any actual evidence of collusion regarding
the e-mail disclosures.
But a June 5 story brought the voter-data story back into the headlines. The story, published
by The Intercept, accepted at face value an NSA report dated May 5, 2017 , that asserted Russia's
military intelligence agency, the GRU, had carried out a spear-phishing attack on a US company providing
election-related software and had sent e-mails with a malware-carrying word document to 122 addresses
believed to be local government organizations.
But the highly classified NSA report made no reference to any evidence supporting such an attribution.
The absence of any hint of signals intelligence supporting its conclusion makes it clear that the
NSA report was based on nothing more than the same kind of inconclusive "indicators" that had been
used to establish the original narrative of Russians hacking electoral databases.
A Checkered History
So, the history of the US government's claim that Russian intelligence hacked into election databases
reveals it to be a clear case of politically motivated analysis by the DHS and the Intelligence Community.
Not only was the claim based on nothing more than inherently inconclusive technical indicators but
no credible motive for Russian intelligence wanting personal information on registered voters was
ever suggested.
Russian intelligence certainly has an interest in acquiring intelligence related to the likely
outcome of American elections, but it would make no sense for Russia's spies to acquire personal
voting information about 90,000 registered voters in Illinois.
When FBI Counterintelligence chief Priestap was asked at the June 21 hearing how Moscow might
use such personal data, his tortured effort at an explanation clearly indicated that he was totally
unprepared to answer the question.
"They took the data to understand what it consisted of," said Priestap, "so they can affect better
understanding and plan accordingly in regards to possibly impacting future election by knowing what
is there and studying it."
In contrast to that befuddled non-explanation, there is highly credible evidence that the FBI
was well aware that the actual hackers in the cases of both Illinois and Arizona were motivated by
the hope of personal gain.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security
policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war
in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at
[email protected]. Reprinted from
Consortium News with the author's permission.
"... Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers, as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.) ..."
"... The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office and those they represent are sidelined. ..."
"... And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost? Because she could no longer deliver. ..."
"... Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our version of Gen. Pinochet. ..."
"... It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. ..."
"... No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to dump Democrats. ..."
"... as I keep reminding people, you can turn on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't. In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature death from alcoholism. ..."
"... One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that ..."
"... This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too. And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more. ..."
"... In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short summary: ..."
"... None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed. ..."
"... If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's actually a crime. ..."
"... Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years. Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug). ..."
"... Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests! ..."
"... This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff. It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip entirely. ..."
"... How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for their opponent. Or Was she ..."
"... OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see. ..."
"... For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source. ..."
"... As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said. ..."
...Gaius quotes Matt Taibbi's line of thought that the relentless Trump investigations will eventually
turn up something, most likely money laundering. However, it's not clear that that can be pinned
on Trump. For real estate transactions, it is the bank, not the property owner, that is responsible
for anti-money-laundering checks. So unless Trump was accepting cash or other payment outside the
banking system, it's going to be hard to make that stick. The one area where he could be vulnerable
is his casinos. However, if I read this history of his casinos correctly,
Trump
could have been pretty much out of that business since 1995 via putting the casinos in a public
entity (although he could have continued to collect fees as a manager). Wikipedia hedges its bets
and says Trump
has been out
of the picture since at least 2011 . He only gets licensing fees and has nada to do with management
and operations. So even if Trump got dirty money, and in particular dirty Russian money, it's hard
to see how that begins to translate into influence over his Presidency, particularly since any such
shady activity took place before Trump was even semi-seriously considering a Presidential bid.
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to
DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to
go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers,
as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video
doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.)
"And most pitiful of all that I heard was the voice of the daughter of Priam, of Cassandra" - Homer, The Odyssey
,
Book 11
PRIAM: What noise, what shriek is this? TROILUS: 'Tis our mad sister; I do know her voice. It is Cassandra.
-Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida ,
Act II, scene 2 "I'll be your Cassandra this week."
-Yours truly
So much of this story is hidden from view, and so much of the past has to be erased to conform
to what's presently painted as true.
Example of the latter: Did you remember that Robert Mueller and Bush's FBI were behind the
highly
suspicious (and likely covered-up) 2001 anthrax investigation - Robert Mueller, today's man of
absolute integrity? Did you remember that James Comey was the man behind the
destruction of the mind of Jose Padilla , just so that Bush could have a terrorist he could point
to having caught - James Comey, today's man of doing always what's right? If you forgot all that
in the rush to canonize them, don't count on the media to remind you - they have
another purpose .
Yes, I'll be your Cassandra this week, the one destined
not to be believed . To what
do I refer? Read on.
How Many Foreign Agents Register as Foreign Agents? A Number Far Smaller Than "All"
Today let's look at one of the original sins pointed to by those trying to take down Trump, leaving
entirely aside whether Trump needs taking down (which he does). That sin - Michael Flynn and Paul
Manafort's failing to register as "foreign agents" (of Turkey and Ukraine, respectively, not Russia)
until very after the fact.
See the Chris Hayes video at the top for Hayes' question to Rep. Eric Swalwell about that. Hayes
to Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" What
Swalwell should have answered: "Almost forever by modern American practice."
Jonathan Marshall,
writing at investigative journalist Robert Parry's Consortium News, has this to say about the
current crop of unregistered foreign agents (my emphasis throughout):
The Open Secret of Foreign Lobbying
The alleged hacking of the Hillary Clinton campaign's emails and the numerous contacts of Donald
Trump's circle with Russian officials, oligarchs and mobsters have triggered any number of investigations
into Moscow's alleged efforts to influence the 2016 election and the new administration .
In contrast, as journalist Robert Parry recently
noted , American politicians and the media have been notably silent about other examples of
foreign interference in U.S. national politics. In part that's because supporters of more successful
foreign pressure groups have enough clout to
downplay or deny their very existence . In part it's also because America's political system
is so riddled with big money that jaded insiders rarely question the status quo of influence
peddling by other nations .
The subject of his discussion is the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Under the Act,
failure to properly register carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
Marshall notes that while the influence of foreign agents was of great national concern during World
War I and World War II, very little is done today to require or enforce FARA registration:
Since the end of World War II, however, enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act
has been notably lax. Its effectiveness has been stymied by political resistance from lobby supporters
as well as by the law's many loopholes -
including Justice Department's admission that FARA "does not authorize the government to inspect
records of those not registered under the Act."
A 2016 audit
by the inspector general of the Department of Justice
determined that half of FARA registrations and 62 percent of initial registrations
were filed late , and 15 percent of registrants simply stopped filing for periods of
six months or more. It also determined that the Department of Justice brought only seven criminal
cases under FARA from 1966 to 2015, and filed no civil injunctions since 1991 .
The result - almost no one registers who doesn't want to.
Here's Russia-savvy
Matt Taibbi , who is looking at the whole Russia-Trump investigation and wonders what's being
investigated. Note his comments about FARA at the end of this quote:
When James Comey was fired I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story
is still hidden from view .
Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting
your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about
tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable,
unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions
in a crisis.
But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of
the Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.
[So] What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence
chiefs, if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.
Is it a FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) case involving former National Security Adviser
Michael Flynn or a lower-level knucklehead like Carter Page?
Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities
unless it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people
in Washington who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged
in "litigation support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that
this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis.
Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving
someone higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely
be improper – possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes
– for Trump to get in the way of such a case playing itself out.
But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason . Gutting
a money-laundering case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption
than the cloak-and-dagger nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination.
Sticking narrowly with FARA for the moment, if this were just a FARA case, it would be more than
"somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot
constitutional crisis." It would be, not to put to fine a point on it, highly indicative that something
else is going on, that other hands are involved, just as the highly suspicious circumstances around
the takedown of Eliot Spitzer indicate the presence of other hands and other actors.
My best guess, for what it's worth, is that Trump-Russia will devolve into a money-laundering
case, and if it does, Trump will likely survive it, since so many others in the big money world do
the same thing. But let's stick with unregistered foreign agents a bit longer.
John McCain, Randy Scheuneman and the Nation of Georgia
Do you remember the 2008 story about McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann, who claimed he no longer
represented the nation of Georgia while advising the McCain campaign, even though his small (two-person)
firm still retained their business?
In the current [2008] crisis, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia fell into a Soviet trap
by moving troops into the disputed territory of South Ossetia and raining artillery and rocket
fire on the South Ossetian capital city of Tskhinvali, with a still undetermined loss of civilian
life. As in 1956, the Soviets responded with overwhelming force and additional loss of life. Once
again the United States could offer only words, not concrete aid to the Georgians.
It is difficult to believe that, like the Hungarians in 1956, the Georgians in 2008 could
have taken such action without believing that they could expect support from the United States
. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denies that the Bush administration was the agent provocateur
in Georgia. To the contrary, a State Department source said that she explicitly warned President
Saakashvili in July to avoid provoking Russia.
If this information is correct, then, by inference, John McCain emerges as the most likely
suspect as agent provocateur . First, McCain had a unique and privileged pipeline to President
Saakashvili (shown to the right in the photo to the right). McCain's top foreign policy advisor,
Randy Scheunemann, was a partner in a two-man firm that served as a paid lobbyist for the Georgian
government . Scheunemann continued receiving compensation from the firm until the McCain campaign
imposed new restrictions on lobbyists in mid-May. Scheunemann reportedly helped arrange a telephone
conversation between McCain and Saakashvili on April 17 of this year, while he was still being
paid by Georgia...
McCain has benefited politically from the crisis in Georgia. McCain's swift and belligerent
response to the Soviet actions in Georgia has bolstered his shaky standing with the right-wing
of the Republican Party. McCain has also used the Georgian situation to assert his credentials
as the hardened warrior ready to do battle against a resurgent Russia. He has pointedly contrasted
his foreign policy experience with that of his Democratic opponent Barack Obama. Since the
crisis erupted, McCain has focused like a laser on Georgia, to great effect . According to
a Quinnipiac
University National Poll released on August 19 he has gained four points on Obama since their
last poll in mid-July and leads his rival by a two to one margin as the candidate best qualified
to deal with Russia.
Was Scheunemann a paid lobbyist for Georgia at the time of these events? He says no. Others
aren't so sure :
Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal-leaning watchdog
group, said Scheunemann still has a conflict of interest because his small firm continues to represent
foreign clients. The records that show Scheunemann ceased representing foreign countries as of
March 1 also show his partner, Michael Mitchell, remains registered to represent the three nations.
Mitchell said Tuesday that Scheunemann no longer has any role with Orion Strategies but declined
to say whether Scheunemann still is receiving income or profits from the firm .
If almost no one registers under FARA who doesn't want to, what's the crime if Flynn didn't register?
The answer seems to be, because he's Trump appointee Michael Flynn, and FARA is a stick his
enemies can beat him with, while they're looking for something better.
The fact that FARA is a stick almost no one is beaten with, matters not at all, it seems.
Not to Democratic politicians and appointees; and not to many journalists either.
An Investigation in Search of a Crime
Questioning the Michael Flynn investigation leads us (and Matt Taibbi) down a further rabbit hole,
which includes two questions: what's being investigated, and how did this investigation start?
Short answer to the first question - no one knows, since unlike the Watergate break-in, this whole
effort didn't start with a crime that needed investigating. It seems to have started with an investigation
(how to get rid of Trump) in search of a crime. And one that still hasn't found evidence of one.
Journalist Robert Parry, who himself was a key Iran-Contra investigator,
makes the same point :
In Watergate , five burglars were caught inside the DNC offices on June 17, 1972, as
they sought to plant more bugs on Democratic phones. (An earlier break-in in May had installed
two bugs, but one didn't work.) Nixon then proceeded to mount a cover-up of his 1972 campaign's
role in funding the break-in and other abuses of power.
In Iran-Contra , Reagan secretly authorized weapons sales to Iran, which was then designated
a terrorist state, without informing Congress, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. He
also kept Congress in the dark about his belated signing of a related intelligence "finding."
And the creation of slush funds to finance the Nicaraguan Contras represented an evasion of the
U.S. Constitution.
There was also the attendant Iran-Contra cover-up mounted both by the Reagan White House and
later the George H.W. Bush White House, which culminated in Bush's Christmas Eve 1992 pardons
of six Iran-Contra defendants as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh
was zeroing in on possible indictment of Bush for withholding evidence.
By contrast , Russia-gate has been a "scandal" in search of a specific crime. President
Barack Obama's intelligence chieftains have alleged – without presenting any clear evidence –
that the Russian government hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee and of
Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and released those emails via WikiLeaks and other
Internet sites. (The Russians and WikiLeaks have both denied the accusations.)
The DNC emails revealed that senior Democrats did not maintain their required independence
regarding the primaries by seeking to hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders and help Clinton. The Podesta emails
pulled back the curtain on Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street banks and on pay-to-play features
of the Clinton Foundation.
Hacking into personal computers is a crime, but the U.S. government has yet to bring any
formal charges against specific individuals supposedly responsible for the hacking of the
Democratic emails. There also has been no evidence that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with
Russians in the hacking.
Lacking any precise evidence of this cyber-crime or of a conspiracy between Russia and the
Trump campaign, Obama's Justice Department holdovers and now special prosecutor Robert Mueller
have sought to build "process crimes," around false statements to investigators and possible
obstruction of justice.
I've yet to see actual evidence of an underlying crime - lots of smoke, which is fine as a starting
point, but no fire, even after months of looking (and months of official leaking about every damning
thing in sight). This makes the current investigation strongly reminiscent of the Whitewater investigation,
another case of Alice (sorry, Ken Starr) jumping into every hole she could find looking for a route
to Wonderland. Ken Starr finally found one, perjury about a blow job. Will Mueller find something
more incriminating? He's still looking too.
Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of . It just means that
how he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair
to do to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)
What Was the Sally Yates Accusation Against Flynn Really About?
Short answer to the second question of my two "further rabbit hole" questions - How did this investigation
start? - may be the Sally Yates accusation that Flynn was someone who could be blackmailed.
Here's Parry on that (same link):
In the case of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser,
acting Attorney General Sally Yates used the archaic Logan Act of 1799 to create a predicate for
the FBI to interrogate Flynn about a Dec. 29, 2016 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak, i.e., after Trump's election but before the Inauguration .
Green Party leader Jill Stein and retired Lt. General Michael Flynn attending a dinner marking
the RT network's 10-year anniversary in Moscow, December 2015, sitting at the same table as Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
The Logan Act, which has never resulted in a prosecution in 218 years , was enacted
during the period of the Alien and Sedition Acts to bar private citizens from negotiating on their
own with foreign governments. It was never intended to apply to a national security adviser
of an elected President, albeit before he was sworn in.
But it became the predicate for the FBI interrogation - and the FBI agents were armed with
a transcript of the intercepted Kislyak-Flynn phone call so they could catch Flynn on any gaps
in his recollection, which might have been made even hazier because he was on vacation in the
Dominican Republic when Kislyak called.
Yates also concocted a bizarre argument that the discrepancies between Flynn's account of the
call and the transcript left him open to Russian blackmail although how that would work – since
the Russians surely assumed that Kislyak's calls would be monitored by U.S. intelligence and
thus offered them no leverage with Flynn – was never explained.
Still, Flynn's failure to recount the phone call precisely and the controversy stirred up around
it became the basis for an obstruction of justice investigation of Flynn and led to President
Trump's firing Flynn on Feb. 13.
Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve
getting rid of . It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters.
"So Much of the Story Is Still Hidden From View"
I'm not taking Robert Parry as the final word on this, but he's one word on this, and his
word isn't nothing. If we were looking down rabbit holes for the source of this investigation,
for where all this anti-Trump action started, I don't think Yates' concerns are where it begins.
What I do know is that Manafort and Flynn not registering as foreign agents puts them squarely
in the mainstream of Washington political practice. The fact that these are suddenly crimes of the
century makes me just a tad suspicious that, in Matt Taibbi's words, "so much of this story is still
hidden from view."
I warned you - I'll be your Cassandra this week. crime
I would think that a crime in search of an investigation would be Clinton's private server
while at state and, the tie in thru the Clinton foundation .just saying.
The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid
for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office
and those they represent are sidelined.
While some might think there is some tie in with donations to the Clinton Foundation and favors
granted by the political wing of the Clinton Conglomerate and the sudden dissolution of said donations
after the toppling of Dame Clinton by Der Trumpf it appears all such talk originates in the fever
swamp of the right wing echo chamber and it's shot caller the GRU.
Present us evidence that the GRU has any influence, much less is the "shot-caller" with respect
to the "right-wing echo chamber".
And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the
phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very
worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost?
Because she could no longer deliver.
I cannot tell if Ed's comment is straight or satire or snarcasm or what. The internet is a
poor place to try such things.
I am going to take it as a straight comment. The Clintons have been grooming Chelsea for public
office and will try desperately to get her elected to something somewhere. That way, they will
still have influence to peddle and their Family of Foundations will still be worth something.
I hope Chelsea's wanna-have political career is strangled in the cradle. And hosed down with
napalm and incinerated down to some windblown ashes.
That investigation has been firmly crammed down the rabbit hole and cemented over.
If it had taken place in a nation where laws meant anything it would have likely disclosed:
Clinton set up a private computer server center to control the information about her background,
financial dealings, and political arrangements while serving as Secretary of State in the Obama
administration.
Obama was aware of the arrangement
Clinton transferred classified and top secrete documents to her private server. This is by
definition theft.
Clinton defied subpoenas, refused to turn over documents, and destroyed evidence. This is
by definition obstruction of justice.
In spite of being informed that the server was not secure, Clinton placed classified and sensitive
national security information on the server. This is equivalent to printing the same documents
on paper and walking through Central Park throwing them at the squirrels. And it fits the legal
definition of treason.
Failure to prosecute Clinton is graphic proof that the US is not a nation of laws, but rather
one where power, bribes and influence peddling determine who the law applies to.
Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect
the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the
US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our
version of Gen. Pinochet.
Since he won't be impeached, I assume Gaius meant Trump should be assassinated? In the USA
every four years we have the opportunity to battle over the control of voting machine software,
voter disqualification and hanging chads. But if we want to change Presidents in mid-stream the
traditional method is to have them shot.
It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. Let Trump be smeared all over
their face and shoved way deep up their noses till 2020. And if the Clintonite scum give us another Clintonite nominee in 2020, then let Trump be elected
all over again. I'll vote for that.
As regards the 2008 Georgian situation discussed here, Russia seems to have been referred to
as Soviet . Twice. This happened for some years in the '90s but it is rather late to
do so these days. Maybe I misunderstood something?
You did not misunderstand; yes, the author of that article was sloppy. He was switching back
and forth between events of 1956 and 2008, and he failed to adequately proofread what he wrote
about 2008.
Gaius offers a realistic and well-put caution for Democrats and journalists taking their eye
off the ball of the Mnuchin crowd.
I've a good friend who's exasperated when I utter such blasphemies, asking how I could have
missed the constant swell of opinion by Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Meadow,
etc
When I reply that prospects outside the courts of comedians and MSNBC infotainment pundits
goosing their base are different – and I'm not so sure I'd prefer a less crass and crazed President
Pence armed with Trumpster strategies – I'm asked "But what about justice?!!!"
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though
its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating
layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to
dump Democrats.
And let's apply the justice to everyone , not just the "enemy camp" of whoever happens
to be speaking.
And let's apply justice to those at the top first. Only after cleaning out all the top, most
privileged layers, then the layers beneath them, should justice be applied to those at the bottom
socio-economic layers. IOW, the opposite of the strategy we've seen applied over most of our history
in many or most places.
Yves Smith: Thanks for this. Astute observations. And as I keep reminding people, you can turn
on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't.
In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature
death from alcoholism.
Hence the observation above in the posting that the rightwingers will pull out the same techniques
if a Democrat wins the next election.
One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of
election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black
hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the
electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and
the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that
I'm sure readers will be shocked to learn that the electoral system referred to is that used
in Venezuela in 2012. And it will be the rare person who can distinguish between a superior system
for conducting an election and a result that they don't like.
Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve
getting rid of.
No. You didn't need to say it even once. Another interesting analysis utterly ruined by the writer's incessant feverish need to virtue
signal himself as a Trump hater. Ugh!
You write an article chock-full of information clearly pointing to corruption, venality, un-democratic
machinations, and still you feel the need to repeat over and over and over again that does not
mean that you don't want to remove Trump. Remove him? Like how, Gaius? And why? Why not remove the people you write about in your article? Why not say 40 times you want to
remove them. Undemocratically, of course. As you say in your article, be careful of how the talk about removing people one does not like.
You're a Cassandra alright. And methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of. It just means that how
he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair to do
to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)
This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to
vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign
against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too.
And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more.
In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short
summary:
Scott Pruitt
Betsy DeVos
Jeff Sessions
Steven Mnuchin
Tom Price
Neil Gorsuch
There are other reasons, but that list should suffice for now.
None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have
demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate
a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the
investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for
obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins
where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed.
Furthermore, many of these writers appear to be unfamiliar with the case law governing the
major features of the case. Yes, money laundering may be a part of the case and a financial blog
may emphasize that aspect of the case because that's what they're familiar with, but what we're
fundamentally looking at is possible violations of the Espionage Act, as well as the obstruction
of justice by certain players to hide their involvement. Not a single one of these articles (or
any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence
that's right there out in the open, if you'd been following this as closely as I have. As much
as I admire Gaius Publius and Matt Taibbi, and trust their reporting within their demonstrated
and reliable competencies, neither have really written about intelligence activities in a thoroughgoing
manner in order to be identified as journalists specializing in matters pertaining to intelligence,
espionage, spies. Publius writes about political economy and Taibbi is as "Russia savvy" as your
average Russian citizen; maybe less so. And being Russia savvy does not make you FSB savvy. Now
if Sy Hersh wrote something about L'Affaire Russe, that would be worth seriously considering.
*I won't even address the seriousness or motives of the people on the right who have been pooh-poohing
the Russia investigation. But it is curious for otherwise "GOP-savvy" lefties to align with people
who spout Fox News talking points all the live long day, and who are wrong about everything, all
the time, and not in a "broken clock tells correct time twice a day" sort of way.
If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been
leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's
actually a crime.
Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback
for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years.
Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to
uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug).
Just what makes Putin "the enemy"? Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction
more favorable to their interests! and in other news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
> Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction
more favorable to their interests!
This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff.
It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip
entirely.
> Putin must be delighted to have a vainglorious ignoramus presiding over a US government paralyzed
by division
How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for
their opponent. Or Was she Putin's stooge? Perhaps the server she left open to the world
for three months with no password provided the Russkis with some kompromat ? Really,
there's as much evidence for that theory as anything else
> so must also likewise concede that there may be more there than you suppose
So either there's something there or there isn't. That does seem to exhaust the possibilities.
If only Maddow, the Clintonites, whichever factions in the intelligence community that are
driving the "drip, drip, drip" of stories, the Jeff Bezos Shopper, cable, and all the access journalists
writing it all up would take such a balanced perspective .
OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence
community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment
artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see.
Because secret squirrel counterintelligence. Ah, now I get it.
We don't know who the leakers are. They're anonymous, but they willingly associate themselves
with an intelligence community, the very organizations that commit perjury, that engage in torture,
that do entrapment, all on a regular basis. Not to mention other crimes for which men have hung,
such as gin up up evidence to drive this country towards aggressive war. So nothing to be suspicious
of here.
These organizations have been leaking on a regular basis but they have not leaked evidence.
That by itself is suspicious, since in a white collar crime case, a serial killer case, etc. we
don't usually have a flood of anonymous leaks coming from supposed investigators.
Nor in a garden-variety criminal investigation do we have the suspect laid out in advance,
and any leaks are intended to make the suspect guilty in the mind of the public, before charges
or brought or a crime is determined.
For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish
some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source.
Nope. Telling us prawns to wait until the evidence is in, or, worse, that only the specialists
can be trusted, is one of the tactics of repression that the elite use while they are busy manufacturing
and/or hiding said evidence. And surely by now we all know that "specialists" have no clothes.
If you want serious analysis by seriously non-left people who have broken rocks in the quarry
of intelligence, you can read Sic Semper Tyrannis. They have offered some hi-valu input on this
whole "Putin diddit" deal.
They also offered some hi-valu input on the Hillary server matter. And Colonel Lang had a thing
or three to say about the Clinton Family of Foundations . . . including a little-remarked-upon
stealth-laundry-pipeline registered in Canada.
Philip Giraldi has also written guest-posts at Sic Semper Tyrannis from time to time. The name
"Philip Giraldi' is one of the pickable subject-category names on the right side of the SST homepage.
> Not a single one of these articles (or any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one
of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence that's right there out in the open, if you'd been
following this as closely as I have.
Or, you know, probable cause to investigate based on very public admissions. Production before
a grand jury is secret under penalty of criminal prosecution. Once probable cause is affirmed,
then the indictments will be under seal for what could be some time. I think it's probable that
there may already be indictments against some of the players. DJT may already be a John Doe. The
Fed GJ's in DC are three months long, the current one wrapping up third week of August [a guess
based on past experience as a 3rd party]. Expect movement early this fall.
As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump
was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also
points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one
seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said.
Nixon was a completely different case. There had been an actual crime, a break in. Archibald
Cox was an special prosecutor appointed by Congress. Firing him raised Constitutional issues.
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, read the complaint in "Kriss et al v. BayRock
Group LLC et al" [ 1:10-cv-03959-LGS-DCF ] in NY Southern District. It's a RICO. It goes from
the 46-story Trump SoHo condo-hotel on Spring Street to Iceland [?] and beyond. Then check out
DJT's deposition in Trilogy Properties "LLC et al v. SB Hotel Associates LLC et al" [ 1:09cv21406
] and his D&O doc production.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
I've said repeatedly that people should stop hyperventilating about Trump and Russia and if
anything should be bothered that he was in business with a crook, as in Felix Sater. I was on
this long ago. Sater is Brighton Beach mafia. That means Jewish mafia, BTW; he worked Jewish connections
overseas. He's not connected to anyone of any importance in Russia. No one with any sophistication
would do business with a felon who turned state's evidence. Means he can't be trusted (by upstanding
people, because he's a crook, and by crooks, because he sang like a canary).
On the latest one, "
GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn ," unlocked
at the WSJ, the main source, long-time Republican oppo researcher Peter W. Smith, left the land
of the living on May 14 of this year, at the age of 81. So, on the up side, we've finally got a source with a name. On the down side, he's dead.
Do better!
"... i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'. the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine yards? ..."
i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'.
the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that
the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what
if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine
yards?
so 'the Russians are coming!' anything to reassert a narrative it can control.
"... As I mentioned earlier, Iran is dismissed as a terrorist state, N. Korea a rogue regime, and
China a growing rival. With Russia the Foreign Policy Establishment (FPE) will invest the time to write,
scholarly looking articles that make it look like they have thoroughly studied Russia and have reluctantly
come to the conclusion that Russia is a basket case of evil. ..."
"... Because I watched Stone's interviews and read Russia insider, I can see why they view Putin
as a threat. Contrary to their assertion that 'Russia has no culture or ideology to challenge the west
(the U.S. FPE)'. This is an issue for them. Putinism, 'sovereignty, local nationalism (for everyone),
a multi-polar world, respect for the UN' vs the FPE, 'exporting U.S. democracy (including regime change)
and the preeminence of U.S. world leadership'. ..."
"... You can debate Putinism but not merely dismiss it as thuggery which they invariably do with
their tediously long articles. It doesn't look like they actually listen to Russians, it looks like
they read each other's papers. ..."
"... Now I can see why Russia has abandoned the information war, they view it as a hopeless waste
of resources that they can never match. ..."
"... For example, here is a very clever apology for how we justified not having the OPCW investigate
Khan Shaykhun and the Syrian airbase https://tcf.org/content/commentary/havent-chemical-weapons-inspectors-gone-syrias-shayrat-air-base/
..."
As I mentioned earlier, Iran is dismissed as a terrorist state, N. Korea a rogue regime,
and China a growing rival. With Russia the Foreign Policy Establishment (FPE) will invest the
time to write, scholarly looking articles that make it look like they have thoroughly studied
Russia and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Russia is a basket case of evil.
These boutique articles will say a lot of condescending things but will tie into, 'Russia never
had a liberal democratic tradition so of course they are governed by monsters like Putin'. I don't
see the same level of care given to the rest of our enemies list. I read realclearworld.com which
gives a sampling of neocon articles so I think I get a broad representation of their production.
Because I watched Stone's interviews and read Russia insider, I can see why they view Putin
as a threat. Contrary to their assertion that 'Russia has no culture or ideology to challenge
the West (the U.S. FPE)'. This is an issue for them. Putinism, 'sovereignty, local nationalism
(for everyone), a multi-polar world, respect for the UN' vs the FPE, 'exporting U.S. democracy
(including regime change) and the preeminence of U.S. world leadership'.
You can debate Putinism but not merely dismiss it as thuggery which they invariably do
with their tediously long articles. It doesn't look like they actually listen to Russians, it
looks like they read each other's papers.
If you take the time to read it, the author is diabolically clever in how he twists Putin's
words. He refers to Russians who lost everything and were forced to leave (note, he leaves out
the dreaded word 'oligarch', that is reserved for those who staid).
Now I can see why Russia has abandoned the information war, they view it as a hopeless
waste of resources that they can never match.
"... But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered the journalist's journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail. In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am Sonntag. ..."
"... His story has spawned two clear "spoiler" responses from those desperate to uphold the official narrative. Hersh's revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh's investigation directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh's alternative narrative and shore up the official one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed. ..."
"... The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh's story, were statements from the Pentagon and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so. ..."
"... And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats " confirmed " that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like substances. ..."
"... There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no "chain of custody" – neutral oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, has noted . Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media. ..."
"... In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading, the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact opposite of what they were supposed to achieve. ..."
"... Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net . ..."
If you wish to understand the degree to which a supposedly free western media are constructing
a world of half-truths and deceptions to manipulate their audiences, keeping us uninformed and pliant,
then there could hardly be a better case study than their treatment of Pulitzer prize-winning investigative
journalist Seymour Hersh.
All of these highly competitive, for-profit, scoop-seeking media outlets separately took identical
decisions: first to reject Hersh's latest investigative report, and then to studiously ignore it
once it was published in Germany last Sunday. They have continued to maintain an absolute radio silence
on his revelations, even as over the past few days they have given a great deal of attention to two
stories on the very issue Hersh's investigation addresses.
These two stories, given such prominence in the western media, are clearly intended to serve as
"spoilers" to his revelations, even though none of these publications have actually informed their
readers of his original investigation. We are firmly in looking-glass territory.
So what did Hersh's
investigation reveal? His sources in the US intelligence establishment – people who have helped
him break some of the most important stories of the past few decades, from the Mai Lai massacre by
American soldiers during the Vietnam war to US abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in 2004 – told
him the official narrative that Syria's Bashar Assad had dropped deadly sarin gas on the town of
Khan Sheikhoun on April 4 was incorrect. Instead, they said, a Syrian plane dropped a bomb on a meeting
of jihadi fighters that triggered secondary explosions in a storage depot, releasing a toxic cloud
of chemicals that killed civilians nearby.
It is an alternative narrative of these events that one might have assumed would be of intense
interest to the media, given that Donald Trump approved a military strike on Syria based on the official
narrative. Hersh's version suggests that Trump acted against the intelligence advice he received
from his own officials, in a highly dangerous move that not only grossly violated international law
but might have dragged Assad's main ally, Russia, into the fray. The Syrian arena has the potential
to trigger a serious confrontation between the world's two major nuclear powers.
But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered
the journalist's journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail.
In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am
Sonntag.
There are a couple of possible, even if highly improbable, reasons all English-language publications
ignored Hersh's story. Maybe they had evidence that his inside intelligence was wrong. If so, they
have yet to provide it. A rebuttal would require acknowledging Hersh's story, and none seem willing
to do that.
Or maybe the media thought it was old news and would no longer interest their readers. It would
be difficult to sustain such an interpretation, but at least it has an air of plausibility – except
for everything that has happened since Hersh published last Sunday.
His story has spawned two clear "spoiler" responses from those desperate to uphold the official
narrative. Hersh's revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely
they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh's investigation
directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead
Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh's alternative narrative and shore up the official
one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed.
The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh's story, were statements from the Pentagon
and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on
his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so.
The US said on Tuesday that it had observed preparations for a possible chemical weapons attack
at a Syrian air base allegedly involved in a sarin attack in April following a warning from the
White House that the Syrian regime would 'pay a heavy price' for further use of the weapons.
And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats "
confirmed " that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like
substances.
There are obvious reasons to be mightily suspicious of these stories. The findings of the OPCW
were already known and had been discussed for some time – there was absolutely nothing newsworthy
about them.
There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no "chain of custody" – neutral
oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former
weapons inspector in Iraq, has
noted . Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached
the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the
traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should
have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media.
Similarly, by going public with their threats against Assad, the Pentagon and White House did
not increase the deterrence on Assad, making it less likely he would use gas in the future. That
could have been achieved much more effectively with private warnings to the Russians, who have massive
leverage over Assad. These new warnings were meant not for Assad but for western publics, to bolster
the official narrative that Hersh's investigation had thrown into doubt.
In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons
attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag
operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading,
the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact
opposite of what they were supposed to achieve.
But beyond this, there was something even more troubling about these two stories. That these official
claims were published so unthinkingly in major outlets is bad enough. But what is unconscionable
is the media's continuing blackout of Hersh's investigation when it speaks directly to the two latest
news reports.
No serious journalist could write up either story, according to any accepted norms of journalistic
practice, and not make reference to Hersh's claims. They are absolutely relevant to these stories.
In fact, more than that, the intelligence sources he cites are are not only relevant but are the
reason these two stories have been suddenly propelled to the top of the news agenda.
Any publication that has covered either the White House-Pentagon threats or the rehashing of the
OPCW report and has not mentioned Hersh's revelations is writing nothing less than propaganda in
service of a western foreign policy agenda trying to bring about the illegal overthrow the Syrian
government. And so far that appears to include every single US and UK mainstream newspaper and TV
station.
Join the
debate on Facebook More articles by:
Jonathan Cook
"... An explanation – of sorts – of why the ageing arse-clown Colbert went to Russia: ..."
"... "In total, the Late Show team shot four or five pieces in Russia, but the host didn't specify when these remote segments might air. The trip took months of planning, Colbert said, and yielded a week's worth of content. Perhaps not coincidentally, Emmy nomination-round voting closed Monday night - just days after Colbert made his trip public, first through a snarky tweet addressed to Donald Trump. ..."
"... By planning a week's worth of content, it seems Late Show wants to make certain that its trip to Russia lands with the greatest impact - and ends with a shiny new Emmy. After all, what would bother the president more than his archenemy in late-night taking home an award that Trump never managed to win himself?" ..."
"... Poison and antidote. Hooking them up on a drug and then extorting junkies for all their money for a new dose. ..."
The Late Show host is back in the U.S., with a week's worth of episodes from his trip-but there's
another, bigger reason for his jaunt abroad
"In total, the Late Show team shot four or five pieces in Russia, but the host didn't
specify when these remote segments might air. The trip took months of planning, Colbert said,
and yielded a week's worth of content. Perhaps not coincidentally, Emmy nomination-round voting
closed Monday night - just days after Colbert made his trip public, first through a snarky
tweet addressed to Donald Trump.
Though we don't know when his Russia segments will air, it seems safe to assume they'll
broadcast some time before final-round Emmy voting begins in August, or during the voting period
itself. Colbert will host this year's Emmy ceremony in September, and after a year of hard
work to overtake Jimmy Fallon in the ratings, the comedian and his team would love to walk
home with some statuary as well. It's almost certain that Late Show itself will be nominated
- and ambitious pieces filmed off-site could boost the host's chances of actually winning.
After all, it was during his week of episodes from last year's Republican National Convention
that Colbert found his groove as a network late-night host in the first place.
Colbert isn't the first late-night host to travel to Russia. Two years ago, John Oliver
made waves when he interviewed Edward Snowden there. And last fall, Samantha Bee's team tracked
down some Russian trolls for fascinating interviews. Outside the late-night sphere, Megyn Kelly
also made the journey earlier this month for her dull interview with Vladimir Putin. Colbert's
trip could carry even more weight than those of his late-night contemporaries simply because
of timing - Oliver went before the presidential campaign had ramped up, and Bee went before
Trump's victory.
By planning a week's worth of content, it seems Late Show wants to make certain that
its trip to Russia lands with the greatest impact - and ends with a shiny new Emmy. After all,
what would bother the president more than his archenemy in late-night taking home an award
that Trump never managed to win himself?"
Here you go! Russia is a "commodity" on the Media market. You know – this "internationally
isolated" (c) "gas station masquerading as a country" (c) that "produces nothing" (c). Here how
it works. Talking heads create the illusion of "oppressive" and "forbidden" Russia, that is oh
so dangerous to visit. And then they "brave" to visit it – woo-hoo! Surely, if they are so brave,
that they MIRACLOUSLY survived numerous assassination attempts (remember, kids – billions of journos
are killed in Russia daily!) then everything they say must be true .
Poison and antidote. Hooking them up on a drug and then extorting junkies for all their
money for a new dose.
On the previous page yalensis made a very important observation – Colbert, Oliver, Stewart
etc. are court jesters of the so-called Western liberal democracy. In ages past, court
jesters were (wait for it!) present at this or that feudal lord's court but they were not
of the court themselves. They were anti-court, and they looked the part: instead of a crown
they wore a cap with bells, instead of regal scepter and orb – a stick with pig's bladder,
instead of rich vestment and mantle – an eyegouging ridiculous attire. No one could possibly
mistake them for "normal" people.
That was the point. They were tolerated because they were not perceived as normal.
Modern day court jesters don't stand out. They wear suits, and ties and expensive shoes
– just like the members of elite they diss/serve under. They look normal and thus are perceived
as normal. Which is wrong and deceitful. People consider them "journalists" and "reporters"
– which they are not. The fool's role is to embellish, to tell parables and to exaggerate –
and, yes, to lie.
They are fools, all right. But how would you call the people, their enormous audience, who
listen to fools and believe their every single word?
"... So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect of getting along with Russia so problematic. ..."
"... "And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises he gave to the people." ..."
"... it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." ..."
"... Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku." ..."
"... it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies of our government. ..."
"... Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks: ..."
"... "You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first." ..."
"... To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs. ..."
"... Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being a " useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals who used to be labeled as such. ..."
"... And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization. ..."
by Justin Raimondo Posted
on June
30, 2017 June 29, 2017 As the "Russia-gate" farce continues to dominate the American "news" media,
and President Trump's foreign policy veers off in a direction many of his supporters find baffling,
one wonders: what the heck happened? I thought Trump was supposed to be "Putin's puppet," as Hillary
Clinton and her journalistic camarilla would have it.
The Russian president, in his extended interview with filmmaker Oliver Stone, has an explanation:
"Stone: Donald Trump won. This is your fourth president, am I right? Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama,
and now your fourth one. "Putin: Yes, that's true. "Stone: What changes? "Putin:
Well, almost nothing."
Stone is surprised by this answer, and Putin elaborates:
"Well, life makes some changes for you. But on the whole, everywhere, especially in the
United States, the bureaucracy is very strong. And bureaucracy is the one that rules the world."
This is a reiteration of something the Russian president said earlier in the context of Stone's
questions about the US election. Stone asks what he thinks of the various candidates: Trump's name
doesn't come up, but Stone does ask about Bernie Sanders. Putin replies:
"It's not up to us to say. It's not whether we are going to like it or not. All I can say
is as follows the force of the United States bureaucracy is very great. It's immense. And there
are many facts not visible about the candidates until they become president. And the moment one
gets to the real work, he or she feels the burden."
So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because
the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And
so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the
election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question
as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect
of getting along with Russia so problematic.
Trump and his campaign, says Putin, "understood where their voters were located" – a reference,
I believe, to the surprising results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Clinton's supporters
"should have drawn conclusions from what they did, from how they did their jobs, they shouldn't have
tried to shift the blame on to something outside." This is what the more
perceptive progressives are
saying – but then again I suppose that they, too, are "Putin's puppets."
This section of the interviews occurred in February, and so it's interesting how Putin predicted
what would happen to the Trump presidency and the conduct of his foreign policy:
"And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president
and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president
to make good on the promises he gave to the people."
To say the least. There is much more in this series of interviews, including some real news that
has been ignored by the "mainstream" media, including:
Joint US-Russian efforts to eliminate ISIS in Syria were on the agenda even before Trump took the
White House, "But at the last moment," says Putin, "I think due to some political reasons, our American
partners abandoned this project." (This is yet another vindication of my theory of "
libertarian realism ," by the way.) Putin tells Stone that
the Ukraine snipers who shot
at both the government forces and the anti-government crowds in Kiev – an event that signaled the
end of the Yanukovych regime – were trained and financed in the West: "[W]e have information available
to us that armed groups were trained in the Western parts of Ukraine itself, in Poland, and in a
number of other places." Putin has evidence of
Turkish support for ISIS : "During the G20 summit, when the journalists left the room, I took
out photos and from my place where I was sitting I showed those photos [of ISIS oil being transported
to Turkey] to everyone. I showed it to my counterparts. I showed them the route I mentioned earlier.
And we have shown these photos to our American counterparts . Everyone knew about everything. So
trying to open a door which is already open is simply senseless. It's something that is absolutely
evident. So it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that
route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." At one point, Putin takes out his cell phone
and shows Stone a video of a Russian attack on ISIS forces, remarking "By the way, they were coming
from the Turkish side of the border." Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According
to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the
Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their
alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US
Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku."
And then there's one specific instance in which the news is anticipated: Stone brings up the Snowden
revelation that the Americans have planted malware in Japanese infrastructure capable of shutting
that country down, and he speculates that Washington has surely targeted Russia in the same way.
Which brings to mind a recent Washington Post story reporting that
this is indeed the case .
There's a lot more in these interviews than I have space to write about: my favorites are the
instances in which Stone's leftism comes up against Putin's paleoconservatism. At several points
the issue of "anti-Americanism" comes up, and the debate between the two is illuminating in that
it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies
of our government. I had to laugh when Putin asked Stone: "Are you a communist?" Stone denies
it: "I'm a capitalist!"
There is also a lot of humor here: Stone insists on showing Putin a scene from "Dr. Strangelove,"
the part where the mad scientist rides a nuke, laughing maniacally. The sardonic expression on Putin's
face speaks volumes. Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy
in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question
very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral
abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks:
"You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the
first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first."
To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs.
Putin's sense of humor is a bit dark, and things get darker still as he predicts what the consequences
for Stone will be when "The Putin Interviews" is released:
"You've never been beaten before in your life?," says Putin. "Oh yes, many times," says Stone.
I think Putin was talking about being physically beaten, but, anyway, the Russian leader goes on
to say: "Then it's not going to be anything new, because you're going to suffer for what you're about
to do." "No, I know," says Stone, "but it's worth it. It's worth it to try to bring some more peace
and consciousness to the world."
Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is
that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being
a "
useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals
who used to be labeled as such.
And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to
realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely
described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing
this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it
for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man
who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and
Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization.
What we have witnessed in the past few months, however, is that this potential benefit to both
countries is being denied by some very powerful forces. The entire "Deep State" apparatus, which
Putin is very much aware of, is implacably opposed to peaceful cooperation, and will do anything
to stop it. But why?
There are many factors, including money – the military-industrial complex is dependent on hostility
between the US and Russia, as are our parasitic "allies' in Europe – as well as cultural issues.
Russia is essentially a conservative society, and our "progressive" elites hate it for that reason.
Which brings us to the real reason for the Russophobia that infects the American political class,
and that is Putin's commitment to the concept of national sovereignty.
Nationalism in all its forms is bitterly opposed by our elites, and this is what sets them against
not only Putin but also against President Trump. Their allegiance isn't to the United States as a
separate entity, but to the "Free World," whatever that may be. And their foreign allies are even
more explicit about their radical internationalism, bitterly clinging to transnational institutions
such as the European Union even as populist movements upend them.
This is the central issue confronting the parties and politicians of all countries, the conflict
that separates the elites from the peoples they would like to rule: it is globalism versus national
sovereignty. And this is not just a foreign policy question. It is a line of demarcation that puts
the parties of all countries on one side of the barricades or the other.
In his famous essay, " The End of History
," neoconservative theorist Francis Fukuyama outlined the globalist project, which he saw as
the inevitable outcome of human experience: a "universal homogenous State" that would extend its
power across every civilized country and beyond. But of course nothing is inevitable, at least in
that sense and on that scale, a fact the elites who hold this vision recognize all too well. So they
are working day and night to make it a reality, moving their armies and their agents into this country
and that country, encircling their enemies, and waiting for the moment to strike. And Putin, the
ideologue of national sovereignty, is rightly perceived as their implacable enemy, the chief obstacle
to the globalist project.
That's why they hate him. It has nothing to do with the annexation of Crimea, or the alleged "authoritarianism"
of a country that now has a multi-party system a few short decades after coming out of real totalitarianism.
Even if Russia were a Jeffersonian republic, and Putin the second coming of Gandhi, still they would
demonize him and his country for this very reason.
As to who will win this struggle between globalism and national particularism, I would not venture
a guess. What I will do, however, is to remind my readers that if ever this worldwide "homogenous
State" comes into being, there will be nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, no way to escape its power.
Editorial note : This is the third and last part of a three-part series on Oliver
Stone's "The Putin Interviews." The first part is
here , and the second part is
here . You can get the book version – which contains some material not included in the film –
here .
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going
here . But please note that my tweets
are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
"... Russia and Putin weren't effective issues for Hillary, and they're not effective issues now, yet the Democratic leadership insists on flogging them. The corrupt, sclerotic, and incompetent Democratic leadership is aloof and out of touch...and needs to go. ..."
Earth to the Democratic leadership: Stop talking so much
about Russia.
"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their
election fortunes have a resounding message for party
leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia.
Democratic leaders have been beating the drum this year
over the ongoing probes into the Trump administration's
potential ties to Moscow, taking every opportunity to
highlight the saga and forcing floor votes designed to
uncover any business dealings the president might have with
Russian figures.
But rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative
is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more
worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs,
wages and the cost of education and healthcare.
In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an
increasing number of Democrats are calling for an adjustment
in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to
the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say,
hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift.
"We can't just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio
aren't really talking that much about Russia, about Putin,
about Michael Flynn," Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told
MSNBC Thursday. "They're trying to figure out how they're
going to make the mortgage payment, how they're going to pay
for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks
like.
"And if we don't talk more about their interest than we do
about how we're so angry with Donald Trump and everything
that's going on," he added, "then we're never going to be
able to win elections."
Russia and Putin weren't effective issues for Hillary,
and they're not effective issues now, yet the Democratic
leadership insists on flogging them. The corrupt, sclerotic,
and incompetent Democratic leadership is aloof and out of
touch...and needs to go.
"... By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." ..."
"... The Hill ..."
"... "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country." ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach in a Washington Post ..."
"... Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are. ..."
"... Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't give it a second thought if they read my article published by The Hill ..."
"... I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything fundamentally different. ..."
"... Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for. ..."
"... The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to neolib resulted in Trump.. ..."
"... There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too. ..."
"... The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message, consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon. ..."
"... for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign either. ..."
"... The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. ..."
"... Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties ( not just Republicans – sorry, integer )? ..."
"... Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is primarily GOP owned or aligned". Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are "owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance. You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork. ..."
"... This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a billion and a half, with nothing to show for it? But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't really Team D's fault you see, and then ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US military. ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. ..."
"... To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo. ..."
"... Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of America's anti-communist right was that they were actually jealous of the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly – and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing here. ..."
"... What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted? ..."
"... Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's 'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col. Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it. ..."
"... This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control over world energy supplies as a lever for domination. ..."
"... Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded. ..."
"... This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume they want the country to move right. ..."
By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group
RootsAction.org
and
the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author
of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning Us to Death."
The plan for Democrats to run against
Russia may be falling apart.
After squandering much of the last six months on faulting Russians for the
horrific presidency of Donald Trump
After blaming America's dire shortfalls of democracy on plutocrats in Russia
more than on plutocrats in America
After largely marketing the brand of their own party as more anti-Russian
than pro-working-people
After stampeding many Democratic Party-aligned organizations, pundits and
activists into fixating more on Russia than on the thousand chronic cuts to
democracy here at home
After soaking up countless hours of TV airtime and vast quantities of ink
and zillions of pixels to denounce Russia in place of offering progressive
remedies to the deep economic worries of American voters
Now, Democrats in Congress and other party leaders are starting to face an
emerging reality: The "winning issue" of Russia is a losing issue.
The results of a reliable new nationwide poll - and what members of Congress
keep hearing when they actually listen to constituents back home - cry out for
a drastic reorientation of Democratic Party passions. And a growing number of
Democrats in Congress are getting the message.
"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a
resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia,"
The
Hill
reported
over
the weekend. In sharp contrast to their party's top spokespeople,
"rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue
with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic
concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare."
The Hill
coverage added: "In the wake of a string of
special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an
adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the
economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the
Democrats manage that shift."
Such assessments aren't just impressionistic or anecdotal. A major poll has
just reached conclusions that indicate party leaders have been operating under
political illusions.
Conducted last week, the Harvard-Harris national poll found a big disconnect
between the Russia obsession of Democratic Party elites in Washington and
voters around the country.
The poll "reveals the risks inherent for the Democrats, who are hoping to
make big gains - or even win back the House - in 2018,"
The Hill
reported.
"The survey found that while 58 percent of voters said they're concerned that
Trump may have business dealings with Moscow, 73 percent said they're worried
that the ongoing investigations are preventing Congress from tackling issues
more vital to them."
The co-director of the Harvard-Harris poll, Mark Penn,
commented
on
the results: "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election
interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a
distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping
the country."
Such incoming data are sparking more outspoken dissent from House Democrats
who want to get re-elected as well as depose Republicans from majority power.
In short, if you don't want a GOP speaker of the House, wise up to the politics
at play across the country.
Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, a progressive Democrat, put it this way:
"We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement [and] we should stay
away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, whether it's about Russia,
whether it's about Comey. Because that has its own independent dynamic, it's
going to happen on its own without us piling on."
Welch said, "We're much better off if we just do the hard work of coming up
with an agenda. Talking about Trump and Russia doesn't create an agenda."
Creating a compelling agenda would mean rejecting what has become the rote
reflex of Democratic Party leadership - keep hammering Trump as a Kremlin tool.
In a typical recent comment, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pounded away at
a talking point already so worn out that it has the appearance of a bent nail:
"What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?"
In contrast, another House Democrat, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, said:
"If you see me treating Russia and criticisms of the president and things like
that as a secondary matter, it's because that's how my constituents feel about
it."
But ever since the election last November, Democratic congressional leaders
have been placing the party's bets heavily on the Russia horse. And it's now
pulling up lame.
Yes, a truly independent investigation is needed to probe charges that the
Russian government interfered with the U.S. election. And investigators should
also dig to find out if there's actual evidence that Trump or his campaign
operatives engaged in nefarious activities before or after the election. At the
same time, let's get a grip. The partisan grandstanding on Capitol Hill, by
leading Republicans and Democrats, hardly qualifies as "independent."
In the top strata of the national Democratic Party, and especially for the
Clinton wing of the party, blaming Russia has been of visceral importance. A
recent book about Hillary Clinton's latest presidential campaign - "Shattered,"
by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes - includes a revealing passage.
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the authors report, campaign
manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her
communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the
election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up."
At that meeting, "they went over the script they would pitch to the press
and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton
presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach
in a Washington Post
opinion
piece
:
"If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on
our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the
more they'll be with us."
Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are.
Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't
give it a second thought if they read my
article
published
by
The Hill
nearly six months ago under the headline "Democrats Are
Playing With Fire on Russia." At the outset, I warned that "the most cohesive
message from congressional Democrats is: blame Russia. The party leaders have
doubled down on an approach that got nowhere during the presidential campaign -
trying to tie the Kremlin around Donald Trump's neck."
And I added: "Still more interested in playing to the press gallery than
speaking directly to the economic distress of voters in the Rust Belt and
elsewhere who handed the presidency to Trump, top Democrats would much rather
scapegoat Vladimir Putin than scrutinize how they've lost touch with
working-class voters."
But my main emphasis in that January 9 article was that "the emerging
incendiary rhetoric against Russia is extremely dangerous. It could lead to a
military confrontation between two countries that each has thousands of nuclear
weapons."
I noted that "enthusiasm for banging the drum against Putin is fast becoming
a big part of the Democratic Party's public identity in 2017. And - insidiously
- that's apt to give the party a long-term political stake in further
demonizing the Russian government."
My article pointed out: "The reality is grim, and potentially catastrophic
beyond comprehension. By pushing to further polarize with the Kremlin,
congressional Democrats are increasing the chances of a military confrontation
with Russia."
Here's a question worth pondering: How much time do members of Congress
spend thinking about ways to reduce the risks of nuclear holocaust, compared to
how much time they spend thinking about getting re-elected?
In political terms,
The Hill
's June 24 news article headlined "Dems
Push Leaders to Talk Less About Russia" should be a wakeup call. Held in the
thrall of Russia-bashing incantations since early winter, some Democrats in
Congress have started to realize that they must break the spell. But they will
need help from constituents willing to bluntly
tell
them to snap out of it
.
If there is to be a human future on this planet, it will require
real
diplomacy between the U.S. and Russia
, the world's two nuclear-weapons
superpowers. Meanwhile - even if the nuclear threat from continuing to escalate
hostility toward Russia doesn't rank high on the list of Democrats' concerns on
Capitol Hill - maybe the prospects of failure in the elections next year will
compel a major change. It's time for the dangerous anti-Russia fever to break.
The "Russiagate" farce had its waterloo moment when three CNN faux
journalists were asked kindly to resign for being too faux even for the Clinton
News Network.
Yes, the Democrat politicians who have enough functioning brain cells to
actually go back to their districts and meet with their random constituents can
plainly see that the people want this BS to come to and end immediately if not
three months ago.
Thanks for the link – confirms what I've suspected for months.
If any of y'all have about 9 minutes to spare, this vid. is really
interesting (& damning).
Debates about whether the Democrat wing of the Property Party should
change its PR focus from trying to manufacture Russiaphobia to pretending to
care about the welfare of the working class are worse than debating about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's embarrassing to watch a
highly intelligent group of people like the NC readership engage in
discussions like this while ignoring the facts before them.
The US is not a democracy. Policies bear little or no correspondence to
the desires of the vast majority of citizens while being highly correlated
with the belief systems and self-interest of a tiny ruling class.
Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses. They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country. Rather, they are pissing contests
between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to temporarily
manipulate public opinion.
Regardless of which party wins, promises in party platforms are
meaningless the day after the election and have little correlation to
candidate behavior.
It follows that it matters little which candidate/figurehead is elected
since they are simply entertainment, while the country continues to be
governed by the banksters, war hawks, medical extortionists, and greedhead
trillionaires who own it.
NC has diligently documented the bankster fraud that characterized the
2007-2008 financial meltdown. Exactly how many of the perpetrators of this
massive theft went to prison?
The US has been at permanent war in the middle east for 20 years under
Democrat and Republican administrations, employing fabrication of events,
torture of prisoners, shock and awe bombing attacks, assassination by remote
control drones, false flag attacks, and proxy funding of Islamic terrorist
organizations. How many CIA torturers, generals, and politicians have been
held accountable for their lies and war crimes?
By "people who have been living in terror" I assume your mean
people who find themselves on the Trump banned country list? Unjust
and anti-humanitarian perhaps, but hardly equivalent to terrorism.
Terrorism is when your wedding party is bombed by a drone being
piloted by a computer operator half a world away because the cyber spy
satellites have detected too many cell phone conversations directed at
one of the guests. Terrorism is when a delusional religious
fundamentalist straps explosives to her body and blows herself up in a
crowded nightclub. And terrorism is when a government funds the
anti-human belief systems that lead to such mad acts.
The first and foremost action should be government funded
elections. Take the money out of politics. Open up ballot access.
Election day should be a national holiday. Paper ballots publicly
counted. Free electioneering on our public airwaves. Run off elections
so that the elected truly have a mandate. The malefactors of wealth
completely control the electoral process. Tall order but nothing else
can be accomplished unless we take back the electoral system,
foundation of democracy.
I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party
messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about
manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything
fundamentally different.
That was absolutely Nancy Pelosi's line on CBS the other morning.
We're not doing anything wrong we're just not getting our message out
there. Delusional bought and paid for party hack. She has got to go.
Agree. Here's slight modification of one of you points:
Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses.
They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country.
Rather, they are pissing
contests between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to
temporarily manipulate public opinion
while maximizing their
revenue.
All largely true; however, there remains a large contingent of non-NC
readers (and traditional Democrat supporters) who remain unaware of most
of this and who need to be convinced. Many of these people are our
friends and relatives, and penetrating their illusions is essential if we
are ever to reform the Democrat party by starving its more problematic
members of voter support. The four points you mentioned, while largely
accepted by NC readers, remain very much to be demonstrated when talking
to these kind of people. We can't just lead with something like "Hillary
is a warmongering crony capitalist who sold out the working class a long
time ago." They will switch off if we do. We need to offer concrete,
real-world examples that demonstrate it, along with the necessary context
for them to understand the problem. If they follow along with the
arguments then they will eventually reach the conclusion on their own.
While this article may not be telling NC readers anything they don't
already know, it's a good example of a narrative that we can use in those
situations.
Trojan Horse. It's the Guardian(and CNN) saying: "we deal with faux news
the moment it happens. Look at how clean we are!" The entire MSM will jump
all over this and pretend they've cleaned house, fixed the one isolated
incident, therefore we can once again trust them to be the truth tellers
they are. A wonderful script for the Lefties and the pseudo-Left media, like
the Guardian. It's BS because they lie all the time about everything!
1. The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party's narrative energy
into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It
is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives
of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party's
base and its relationship with the public. Without the "We didn't
lose–Russia won" narrative the party's elite and those who exist under its
patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and
ideologically passé. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight
years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential. It
corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a
professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in
health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups
combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement
of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity
politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic
catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing
themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
Research).
2. The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite
vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic
senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as
Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is
no evidence of collusion
[
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BS5amEq7Fc
]. Without collusion, we are
left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled
by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. Is
it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman
Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against
Bernie Sanders? A party elite that maintains that it is the "crime of the
century" for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and
what they believe invites scorn.
3. The Democrat establishment needs the support of the security sector
and media barons to push this diversionary conspiracy agenda, so they
ingratiate themselves with these two classes leading to further perceptions
that the Democrats act on behalf of an entrenched power elite. Eventually,
Trump or Pence will 'merge' with the security state leaving Democrats in a
vulnerable position having talked up two deeply unaccountable traditionally
Republican-aligned organizations, in particular, the CIA and the FBI, who
will be turned against them. Other than domestic diversion and geopolitical
destabilization the primary result of the Russian narrative is increased
influence and funding for the security sector which is primarily GOP owned
or aligned.
4. The twin result is to place the primary self-interest concerns of most
Americans, class competition, freedom from crime and ill health and the
empowerment of their children, into the shadows and project the Democrats as
close to DC and media elites. This has further cemented Trump's
anti-establishment positioning and fettered attacks on Trump's run away
embrace of robber barons, dictators and gravitas-free buffoons like the
CIA's Mike Pompeo.
5. GOP/Trump has open goals everywhere: broken promises, inequality,
economy, healthcare, militarization, Goldman Sachs, Saudi Arabia & cronyism,
but the Democrat establishment can't kick these goals since the Russian
collusion narrative has consumed all its energy and it is entangled with
many of the same groups behind Trump's policies.
6. The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party
elite shows no signs that they will give up power. This can be done quickly
and cheaply as a result of the internet and databases of peoples' political
preferences. This reality is proven in practice with the rapid construction
of the Macron, Sanders and Trump campaigns from nothing. The existing
Democratic party may well have negative reputational capital, stimulating a
Macron-style clean slate approach. Regardless, in the face of such a threat,
the Democratic establishment will either concede control or, as in the case
of Macron, be eliminated by the new structure.
I agree with 6. The fact that the Dems reacted to their presidential loss
by immediately accusing their opponent of treason shows how low they have
sunk. Perhaps they thought they were justified in imitating Trump's own
shoot from the lip style but someone has to be the adult in the room.
Meanwhile the country's two leading newspapers turn themselves into social
media sites. The ruling class seems to be cracking up.
Suggested name for new third party: the Not Crazy party.
integer
June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am
Thanks for that!
Again and Again and Again:
"It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures
by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline
in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic
groups combined) have not increased since 1973.
In trying to
stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively
promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable
strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by
seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
Research)."
Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep
progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic
Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for.
The only way to create a new party of actual importance is for it to not
be originated from disenfranchised republicans or disenfranchised democrats,
lest it be branded as extreme by existing power structures, and be resigned
to a fate similar to the libertarian and green parties, which are spoilers
at best.
It would need to be a party that grows out of the moderate center. This
is doable, because will all the gerrymandering they are becoming the least
represented block of voters, that is compounded by the fact that in general
98% of the population are not represented by their representatives anyways.
The center is open to facts and reasonable arguments as to policy
solutions, such as single payer and a restructured health care industry.
That is the executable path to republican and or democrat obsolescence.
The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the
other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without
embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to
neolib resulted in Trump..
Course, the something new macron is just neolib with a pretty face,
French will be disappointed, either the left will join forces next time or
French desperation will bring LE Pen to power.
Fully agree dems have hollowed themselves out enough to create a vacuum,
country desperate for third party. New media is displacing corp mouthpieces,
never been easier to start new. Still think take over greens, make
functional, because ballot access hard to get, particularly with dems
fighting tooth and nail. Come to think of it, maybe they're not completely
dysfunctional, they did manage to get on the ballot in most states, not
easy, and certainly dems didn't help, they hate the greens.
Dems 30, reps 30, indies 40.
Bernie heading progressive greens gets 1/3 dems, 1/6 reps, 3/4 indies? 45 in
three way race is landslide.
In response to point number six:
There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new
party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.
Secondly, Macron can't be compared to Trump/Sanders. He's just
neoliberalism's Potemkin village in France. Both Trump/Sanders aren't really
comparable as they both contained genuine political outsiders such as Bannon
in Trump's case. I wouldn't compare Melenchon to Sanders either. Melenchon
kinda seems like the Le Pen of the French left. By which I mean he would
govern as a authoritarian.
The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume
that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or
quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message,
consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have
been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon.
Just imagine the staff meetings: 'We gotta be right eventually, because
Vince Lombardi said: "Winners never quit and quitters never win"' and politics
is exactly like football. "Ohhh How Deep. Surely advice like that is worth
paying 50 kUSD for".
+ for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get
nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the
military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign
either.
'If you are constantly pounding the pudding, shrieking endlessly, and
hysterically so, about the evils of the PUTIN and his supposed
orange-coiffed minion, while refusing to look into a mirror !!! . You just
might be a DIMOCRAT !"
The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very
telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated
so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. Nobody, and I say nobody, has
even thougth twice about the political risks associated with the demonization
of Russia that coincides with Ukraine isues and natural gas supplies in Europe.
Interestingly Germans have recently agreed with Russia a new pipeline through
the Baltic sea and there is clamor against these agreement amongst other
European countries that do not benefit from the pipeline, and apparently the
clamor is leaded by the US (the supposedly pro Russian Trump government).
and the German journalists, print or TV were ready 2014 like their
colleges were1933, when Goebbels called . And no physical threat this time,
only probe of character.
And as the Germans since long have learnt to be eager to please their masters they did the trick
again, alas now, when they are the paragons of
success in the west.
But the president Donald, thank God, is disclosing all veils and Putin is
showing a
decent kind of leader on the planet.
Cheers from Bavaria's
So the bottom line is that Hillary, who wouldn't work for anything better
than ObamaCare, is ending up sacrificing ObamaCare itself, all because she got
in a powder about people not buying her messageless campaign? We are literally
a handful of days away from losing not only ObamaCare, but Medicaid as well,
and the Democratic establishment has no strategy except to worry that Bernie
Sanders might score a few points for merely repeating back to the party's base
what that base was already saying? Forty years of trying to create a "centrist"
third party is in shambles, and these people still believe they are entitled to
lead what little remains of the party of the working people.
No wonder we were supposed to worry about the Russians. It was the furthest
place they could find from where the problem really was.
As a side note, no one is mentioning the "progressive" bloggers and news
sites (Young Turks, Majority Report, I'm lookin' at ya) who jumped on this
bandwagon after showing support for Sanders, then switched to standard form to
oppose the "fascist" Trump. It says to me that, just like the more well-known
Democratic Party fronts who could have made an effort to show independence,
they are ultimately fronts, just more distantly positioned for maximum
believability. It all smells, and progressives need to examine their principles
before looking to these "saviors".
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it
has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in
bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (not just Republicans –
sorry, integer)? If anything shows the necessity of party realignment (creating
new ones to replace existing), this idiocy is not just a brick in the wall, but
an entire edifice.
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not
suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA,
and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (
not
just Republicans – sorry, integer
)?
Disappointed to read this, as I have never made that claim.
Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is
primarily GOP owned or aligned".
Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to
advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are
"owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this
power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance.
You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork.
It looks like the Fusion GPS Trump dossier, that is the basis for all of the
Russian collusion accusations, is getting ready to become even more of a major
embarrassment, hence all the talk about backing away from the current strategy.
Even Planned Parenthood hired this opposition research firm to get dirt on
right to lifers. Your tax dollars and donations at work.
Ahah! Most Americans don't learn foreign languages. This is irrefutable
proof of a fifth columnist element in America plotting against Moose and
Squirrel. Somebody tell the Hillary campaign!
If Hillary with her celebrity and money can't win, what does it say about
the potential future political dreams of the Dems who enthusiastically
supported her? Or even corporate gigs? What good is a Democrat who can't
deliver?
NBCNews has hired Greta, Megan Kelly, and now Hugh Hewitt. The NYT hired
a host of climate change deniers.
For the Clintonistas especially, why would anyone hire them again? It's
really no different on their part than the "OMG Nader" narrative. In an
election with voter suppression, misleading ballots, bizarre recounts, Joe
Lieberman, high youth non-Cuban Hispanic turnout for Shrub, Katherine
Harris, and the fantasy of simply winning Tennessee, who did Democrats
blame? A powerless figure in Nader.
This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a
billion and a half, with nothing to show for it?
But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't
really Team D's fault you see, and then
Problem is, anyone smart enough to earn that much dough is likely too
smart to fall for the Russia stole the election BS, which is why
Dumbocrats' fundraising has cratered.
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope
to influence.
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The
Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of
for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"
The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their
voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the
Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence
the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US
military.
The USA is also widely viewed as attempting to influence elections overseas,
with none other than Senator Hillary Clinton recorded stating that 'We should
have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win' in a
Palestine election.
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats
hope to influence.
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump
voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have
been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary
Clinton"
I think this is not right. The Dems have no interest in the votes of the
deplorables. What only matters is the meme that HRC should have won. The
charitable interpretation is that DNC is still convinced that demographics
are in their favor (in the long run). So they do not have to diss their
corporate patrons and offer real help to real people; they just need to hold
out long enough for the demographics to kick in. The meme that HRC should
have won is a rationale for staying the course.
Of course, the uncharitable explanation is that they would rather lose
than change.
"As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill
Clinton's Presidential campaign.
The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance."
Yes, it is. Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal
clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better
policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo.
Please just go away, Hillary and Hillary clones.
When you think about it, increasing ever so slightly the risk of actual
nuclear war, damaging the Democratic party, and doing untold damage to
legitimate (hate to use the word anymore) "progressive" causes is more or less
the end-game of all this.
And all in service of, what? Vindicating the failures of the inane pundit
class? (God forbid) setting up Hillary 2020?
Shameful shit right there
Even on a purely political level, the whole Russiagate bullshit was doomed
to failure, methinks.
Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of
America's anti-communist right was that they were actually
jealous
of
the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly
– and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing
here. It wasn't that long ago that the right wing blog-o-sphere and certain wingnut writers were all swooning over Putin's manliness (as opposed to Obama's
alleged 'weakness') like a pack of horny schoolgirls. The dumb bastards were
composing mash notes to the butch Mr. Putin. It was embarrassing.
So if the Dem "leadership" was hoping to turn our own home-grown
reactionaries against Trump over being in bed with Putin, they should have
known better. We all know the right are hypocrites. Even if there
was
anything to Russiagate, they wouldn't care. And the rest of us wouldn't give a
shit, not if it meant ignoring every other problem that needs dealing with.
Since it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway
What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against
any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted?
Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the
Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's
'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col.
Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the
Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting
with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it.
This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves
destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and
insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian
Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy
theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of
the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control
over world energy supplies as a lever for domination.
Assad is really secondary to the main goals of:
Getting the Russian naval presence out of the Mediterranean (note that Nuland -another PNAC operative- leverages unhappiness with the corruption in
Ukraine to install a fascistic government that would certainly have seized the
Russian naval assets at Sevastopol had Russia not seized the Crimea.
Turning Isreal's neighbors into a collection Mad Max style bantu-stans that
can be manipulated easily by Saudi -which is ironically Israel's ally.
Controlling energy transit and access points.
Again, I'm not saying anything that isn't in the record.
Per Clark, "He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a
piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I just got this memo from the
Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the
governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq,
and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and
Iran.""
It was all supposed to occur within 5 years, so by 2008 the dream would
have been accomplished.
But maybe the neocons haven't given up, not installing HRC was a downer,
but maybe Trump can be pulled into line..
Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The
Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos
has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union
was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of
dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of
spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded.
The real power centers in the US are the bankster cabal, robber baron
capitalists, medical extortionists, and the Homeland Insecurity war hawks.
The first three have nothing to fear from a Trump presidency– indeed they
probably will fare better than if the Clinton Crime Syndicate had triumphed.
However (to the extent that he actually stands for anything) Trump's goal of
defusing tensions with Russia and doing oil deals with them is a direct
threat to the War Hawks, and more than sufficient reason to cut him off at
the knees
You do fall into the trap of repeating Deep State propaganda though.
Russia did not seize Crimea. Crimea has been part of the Russian sphere of
influence for generations. It probably is as much Russian as Texas is
American. It's temporary incorporation into Ukraine when the Soviet Union
fractured probably had as much to do with Khrushchev being Ukrainian as it
had to do with creating the best fit. And when the choice was put before a
popular referendum in 2014, 83% of the population turned out to vote and
96.77% voted to join the Russian Federation. Try getting that kind of turn
out and consensus in an American election! And even if there was plenty of
arm twisting behind the scenes, its hard to believe that the result didn't
represent the actual choice of the citizens.
Re Crimea – you're correct of course. The Texas analogy is pretty
good. There was no distinction between Russians and Ukrainians during the
time of the Czars anyway. The territory used to be controlled by the
Hellenes and then the Byzantines. The Germans wanted to annex it as part
of their war goals in ww2
"But CNN is hardly alone when it comes to embarrassing retractions regarding Russia. Over and
over, U.S. major media outlets have published claims about The Russia Threat that turned out to
be completely false – always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating
links between Moscow and the Trump circle. In virtually all cases, those stories involved evidence-free
assertions from anonymous sources which these media outlets uncritically treated as fact, only
for it to be revealed that they were entirely false.
Several of the most humiliating of these episodes have come from the Washington Post. On December
30, the paper published a blockbuster, frightening scoop that immediately and predictably went
viral and generated massive traffic. Russian hackers, the paper claimed based on anonymous sources,
had hacked into the "U.S. electricity grid" through a Vermont utility.
That, in turn, led MSNBC journalists, and various Democratic officials, to instantly sound
the alarm that Putin was trying to deny Americans heat during the winter:
Trump quickly took advantage with a series of tweets on Tuesday, and conservative provocateur
James O'Keefe piled on by releasing a video with a CNN producer caught on camera talking about the
network's Russian coverage being ratings-driven.
...Trump tweeted that "they caught Fake News CNN cold." He lumped ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York
Times and The Washington Post together in the same "fake news" category.
...Aides also believe that highlighting media mistakes could be a useful way of questioning the
credibility of much of the reporting on the scandals surrounding the White House to convince supporters
that Trump was the victim of a witch hunt.
...
Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., suggested in an interview with Breitbart News that "maybe Jeff Zucker
should do an on-camera briefing about CNN's fake news scandal before the White House does any more
of them." CNN's White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, has been particularly vocal in protesting
the administration's dwindling number of on-camera news briefings.
He also tweeted a link to the video posted by O'Keefe's Project Veritas. The hidden-camera video
showed John Bonifield, an Atlanta-based producer in CNN's medical unit, talking about how the "ratings
are incredible" for the network's Russian coverage. He said the network has no "smoking gun" showing
wrongdoing by Trump and that "the president is probably right to say, look, you are witch-hunting
me."
"... My favorite comment from a poster called "Libertarian39" dated 6/23 7:45 AM: "Obama was just feckless. And it infected his
entire administration." There is a certain poetry and alliteration there, plus it's just funny, although I don't know if it was meant
to be. ..."
My favorite comment from a poster called "Libertarian39" dated 6/23 7:45 AM: "Obama was just feckless. And it infected his
entire administration." There is a certain poetry and alliteration there, plus it's just funny, although I don't know if it was
meant to be.
Another Mayberry Machiavelli from intelligence community
Notable quotes:
"... "In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson said." ..."
"... Modern-day political figures seem more and more like some of the characters on "WKRP In Cincinnati"; people who, as the receptionist explained "would otherwise not be able to get jobs" ..."
Appears to be a moron:
"Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson from the Obama administration told the House Intelligence
committee that Moscow's high-tech intrusion did not change ballots, the final count or the reporting
of election results.
Johnson described the steps he took once he learned of the hacking of the Democratic National
Committee, his fears about an attack on the election itself and his rationale for designating
U.S. election systems, including polling places and voter registration databases, as critical
infrastructure in early January, two weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration.
"In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated
cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson
said."
"In January 2011, Johnson provoked controversy when, according to a Department of Defense news
story, he asserted in a speech at the Pentagon that deceased civil rights icon Martin Luther King,
Jr., would have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite King's outspoken opposition
to American interventionism during his lifetime.[28] Johnson argued that American soldiers fighting
in Afghanistan and Iraq were playing the role of the Good Samaritan, consistent with King's beliefs,
and that they were fighting to establish the peace for which King hoped.[29][30] Jeremy Scahill
of Salon.com called Johnson's remarks "one of the most despicable attempts at revisionist use
of Martin Luther King Jr. I've ever seen," while Justin Elliott (also of Salon.com) argued that
based on Dr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War, he would likely have opposed the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, as well as the covert wars in Pakistan and Yemen."
"Johnson provoked controversy when, according to a Department of Defense news story, he asserted
in a speech at the Pentagon that deceased civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr., would have
supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "
He lies! My what-if machine (what I have in my basement) tells me that Dr. King would have
opposed, in the most militant manner possible, the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars!
You didn't have to consult the alternative-worlds TARDIS machine database to find out that Dr
King would have opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: here's the speech he made opposing the
war in Vietnam which may have made him a target for assassination.
"In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated
cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson
said."
He's half-right – the idea certainly is simple. Just like him.
Modern-day political figures seem more and more like some of the characters on "WKRP In
Cincinnati"; people who, as the receptionist explained "would otherwise not be able to get jobs".
David Brooks, another columnist for the Times who spends his days Googling mental disorders
to diagnose Trump with, admitted this week that it's "striking how little evidence there is that
any underlying crime occurred - that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign
and the Russians."
Axios journalist Mike Allen writes a daily newsletter widely read in Washington and on Friday
he wrote that "No evidence of collusion has emerged," which several leading Democrats have also
publicly stated .
That comment came after Comey said that an entire New York Times report alleging "repeated
contacts" between Trump and his associates with "senior Russian intelligence officials" was false.
"In the main, it was not true," Comey said of the Times report .
Liberal MSNBC host Chris Matthews said the theory held by Trump's opponents that his campaign
colluded with Russia "came apart" with Comey's testimony
####
This is just the latest evolution of the Russia wot did it meme . Evidence that Trump
is Putin's puppet/blackmail etc. has run out of steam (and is now admitted) but the Russia angle
is just too good to let go.
And so they just amp it up a couple of more notches, which is what you do when you have no evidence.
Oh, everywhere except in court, of course. Maybe that's the next step for Russia – take the west
to court for defamation. At least Washington would have to admit it doesn't have any proof, and
that its supposed tracings of Russian links to hackings could very possibly have originated elsewhere.
Not least of all, Russia would be able to introduce the angle that Hillary's server was wide-open;
a child could have hacked it, and the email disclosures all reported true information. How it
looked on Clinton is not Russia's problem, and if Americans and westerners in general prefer being
lied to as long as they like what they hear, maybe it's time to get that on the table.
But the campaign is long over. While many of Mr. Trump's allies and supporters are still reluctant to blame Russia, the American
intelligence community has said that Russian interference is a fact, not an opinion. Mr. Trump's strategy of muddying his position
has let the Russia issue grow
, gumming up the gears in his administration's efforts to move forward with major legislation and decisions.
"Geopolitically, it touches everything," Mr. DuHaime said.
Officials in a number of states have in the meantime complained that the White House has done little to try to safeguard the 2018
and 2020 elections against potential Russian intrusions, even as evidence grows that there were efforts to tamper with voter rolls
last year.
Through it all, the president's allies continue to see Russia as a boogeyman for Democrats and a rapacious news media, an issue
his core voters think is manufactured.
"He doesn't want to be set by this narrative that the Russians hacked the election when he has to negotiate with Russia, who,
by the way, sits on China's border," said Sam Nunberg, a former campaign aide to Mr. Trump. "If Putin adamantly denies that he did
it, it's frankly not an issue to the president."
"... Ottawa has interfered in at least one recent Ukrainian election. Canada funded a leading civil society opposition group and promised Ukraine's lead electoral commissioner Canadian citizenship if he did "the right thing" in the 2004-05 poll. ..."
"... Globe and Mail ..."
"... [Canadian ambassador to the Ukraine, Andrew Robinson] began to organize secret monthly meetings of western ambassadors, presiding over what he called 'donor coordination' sessions among 20 countries interested in seeing Mr. [presidential candidate Viktor] Yushchenko succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group's spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed media control. Canada also invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine's Razumkov Centre and other groups that contradicted the official results showing Mr. Yanukovich [winning]. ..."
"... In the 2010 election Ottawa intervened to bring far-right president Michel Martelly to power (with about 16% of the voter, since the election was largely boycotted). Canada put up $6 million for elections that excluded Fanmi Lavalas from participating. After the first round, our representatives on an Organization of American States Mission helped force the candidate the electoral council had in second place, Jude Celestin, out of the runoff. The Center for Economic and Policy Research explained , "the international community, led by the U.S., France, and Canada, has been intensifying the pressure on the Haitian government to allow presidential candidate Michel Martelly to proceed to the second round of elections instead of [ruling party candidate] Jude Celestin." Some Haitian officials had their U.S. visas revoked and there were threats that aid would be cut off if Martelly's vote total wasn't increased as per the OAS recommendation. ..."
"... The absurdity of the whole affair did not stop the Canadian government from supporting the elections and official election monitors from this country gave a thumbs-up to this farcical exercise in "democracy". Describing the fraudulent nature of the elections, Haiti Progrčs ..."
"... Washington has, of course, interfered in hundreds of elections in dozens of countries, including Italy, France, Greece, Chile, Ecuador, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Australia and, yes, Canada. ..."
"... Northern Shadows: Canadians and Central America ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... During the 1963 election campaign Kennedy's top pollster, Lou Harris, helped Pearson get elected prime minister. Kennedy backed Harris' move, though he opposed an earlier request for the pollster to help British Labour leader Harold Wilson, which Harris then declined. Since Harris was closely associated with the US president the Liberals called Kennedy's pollster by a pseudonym. ..."
"... The lesson? Perhaps Washington and Ottawa should treat other countries in the same way they wish to be treated. Perhaps it is time for a broader discussion about election meddling. ..."
If a guy does something bad to someone else, but then complains later when another person does
that same thing to him, what do we say? Stop being a hypocrite. Either you change tact or you got
what you deserved.
Does the same moral logic apply to countries?
Purported Russian meddling in US, French and other elections has received significant attention
recently. "Russian meddling abroad underscores need for electoral reform in Canada"
declared a Rabble.ca headline this week while CBC
noted "Russian attempts to infiltrate U.S. election systems found in 21 states: officials". An
earlier Globe and Mail headline
stated "Russia was warned against U.S. election meddling: ex-CIA head" while a Global News
story
noted "Canada should worry about Russian interference in elections: former CSIS head."
Interference in another country's election is an act of aggression and should not happen in a
just world so these accusations deserve to be aired and investigated. But, how can one take the outrage
seriously when the media commentators who complain about Russia ignore clear-cut Canadian meddling
elsewhere and the decades-long history of US interference in other countries' elections around the
world, including in Canada.
Ottawa has interfered in at least one recent Ukrainian election. Canada
funded a leading civil society opposition group and promised Ukraine's lead electoral commissioner
Canadian citizenship if he did "the right thing" in the 2004-05 poll. Ottawa also paid for 500
Canadians of Ukrainian descent to observe the elections. Three years after Globe and Mail
reporter Mark MacKinnon
explained :
[Canadian ambassador to the Ukraine, Andrew Robinson] began to organize secret monthly
meetings of western ambassadors, presiding over what he called 'donor coordination' sessions among
20 countries interested in seeing Mr. [presidential candidate Viktor] Yushchenko succeed. Eventually,
he acted as the group's spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed
media control. Canada also invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day
by Ukraine's Razumkov Centre and other groups that contradicted the official results showing Mr.
Yanukovich [winning].
Canada has also interfered aggressively in Haitian elections. After
plotting , executing
and consolidating the 2004 coup against Jean Bertrand Aristide's government, Canadian officials interceded
in the first election after the coup. In 2006 Canada's then-chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre
Kingsley, led a team of Canadian observers to Haiti for elections that excluded the candidate – Father
Gérard Jean Juste – of Haiti's most popular political party Fanmi Lavalas. With the country gripped
by social upheaval after widespread fraud in the counting, including thousands of ballots found burned
in a dump, Kingsley released a statement claiming, "the election was carried out with no violence
or intimidation, and no accusations of fraud." Chair of the International Mission for Monitoring
Haitian Elections, Kingsley's statement went on to laud Jacques Bernard, the head of the electoral
council despite the fact that Bernard had already been widely derided as corrupt and biased even
by other members of the coup government's electoral council.
In the 2010 election Ottawa intervened to bring far-right president Michel Martelly to power
(with about 16% of the voter, since the election was largely boycotted). Canada put up $6 million
for elections that excluded Fanmi Lavalas from participating. After the first round, our representatives
on an Organization of American States Mission helped force the candidate the electoral council had
in second place, Jude Celestin, out of the runoff. The Center for Economic and Policy Research
explained , "the international community, led by the U.S., France, and Canada, has been intensifying
the pressure on the Haitian government to allow presidential candidate Michel Martelly to proceed
to the second round of elections instead of [ruling party candidate] Jude Celestin." Some Haitian
officials had their U.S. visas revoked and there were threats that aid would be cut off if Martelly's
vote total wasn't increased as per the OAS recommendation.
Half of the electoral council agreed to the OAS changes, but half didn't. The second round was
unconstitutional,
noted Haďti Liberté's Kim Ives, as "only four of the eight-member Provisional Electoral Council
(CEP) have voted to proceed with the second round, one short of the five necessary. Furthermore,
the first round results have not been published in the journal of record, Le Moniteur, and President
Préval has not officially convoked Haitians to vote, both constitutional requirements."
The absurdity of the whole affair did not stop the Canadian government from supporting the
elections and official election monitors from this country gave a thumbs-up to this farcical exercise
in "democracy". Describing the fraudulent nature of the elections, Haiti Progrčs explained
"the form of democracy that Washington, Paris and Ottawa want to impose on us is becoming a reality."
Washington has, of course, interfered in hundreds of elections in dozens of countries, including
Italy, France, Greece, Chile, Ecuador, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Australia and, yes, Canada.
You haven't heard about that one?
During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis the Kennedy administration wanted Ottawa's immediate and
unconditional support in putting the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) on high alert.
Diefenbaker hesitated, unsure if Washington was telling him the full story about Soviet/Cuban plans
or once again bullying the small island nation.
Not happy with Diefenbaker's attitude during the Cuban Missile Crisis or his ambivalence towards
nuclear weapons in Canada, President John F. Kennedy worked to precipitate the downfall of his minority
Conservative government. Kennedy preferred Lester Pearson's Liberals who criticized Diefenbaker on
Cuba and were willing to accept nuclear-armed Bomarc missiles.
"In the fall of 1962," notes Peter McFarlane in Northern Shadows: Canadians and Central America
, "the State Department began to leak insulting references about Diefenbaker to the U.S. and
Canadian press." Articles highly critical of the Canadian prime minister appeared in the New
York Times , Newsweek and other major US media outlets. On January 3 the outgoing commander
of NATO, US General Lauris Norstad, made a surprise visit to Ottawa where he claimed Canada would
not be fulfilling her commitments to the north Atlantic alliance if she did not acquire nuclear warheads.
Diefenbaker believed the US general came to Canada "at the behest of President Kennedy" to set the
table "for Pearson's conversion to the United States nuclear policy."
A future prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, concurred. He asked:
Do you think that General Norstad, the former supreme commander of allied forces in Europe,
came to Ottawa as a tourist on January 3 to call publicly on the Canadian government to respect
its [nuclear] commitments? Do you think it was by chance that Mr. Pearson, in his speech of January
12, was able to quote the authority of General Norstad? Do you think it was inadvertent that,
on January 30, the State Department gave a statement to journalists reinforcing Mr. Pearson's
claims and crudely accusing Mr. Diefenbaker of lying? you believe that it was by coincidence
that this series of events ended with the fall of the [Diefenbaker] government on February 5?
A State Department official, Willis Armstrong, described Kennedy's attitude towards the March
1963 Canadian election: "He wanted to intervene and make sure Pearson got elected. It was very evident
the president was uptight about the possibility that Pearson might not win." Later Kennedy's Secretary
of State Dean Rusk admitted "in a way, Diefenbaker was right, for it was true that we preferred Mike
Pearson."
During the 1963 election campaign Kennedy's top pollster, Lou Harris, helped Pearson get elected
prime minister. Kennedy backed Harris' move, though he opposed an earlier request for the pollster
to help British Labour leader Harold Wilson, which Harris then declined. Since Harris was closely
associated with the US president the Liberals called Kennedy's pollster by a pseudonym.
Washington may have aided Pearson's campaign in other ways. Diefenbaker wondered if the CIA was
active during the 1963 election while External Affairs Minister Howard Green said a US agent attended
a couple of his campaign meetings in BC.
To Washington's delight, Pearson won the election and immediately accepted nuclear-armed Bomarc
missiles.
The lesson? Perhaps Washington and Ottawa should treat other countries in the same way they
wish to be treated. Perhaps it is time for a broader discussion about election meddling.
Taken from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Despite initial popularity among his fellow party members and the American public, McCarthy's
career began to decline. Even some moderate Republicans withdrew their support from him because
they felt the senator was hurting the presidential administration. Despite his waning support,
President Eisenhower refrained from publicly reprimanding McCarthy. Apparently, the president
refused to "go into the gutter" with McCarthy by initializing a public confrontation. Doing
so would only create more chaos and generate more publicity for the senator .However, it became
apparent that McCarthy's end was near.
McCarthy's First Strike
In june 1953, J.B. Matthews was appointed as McCarthy's research director. In July, Matthews
published an article called "Reds in our churches" in the conservative American Mercury. In
it, Matthews referred to the Protestant clergy as " the largest single group supporting the
Communist apparatus in the United States." The result was a public outrage at Matthews as well
as his boss McCarthy.
Army Investigation
McCarthy began his investigation of the Army Signal Corps Laboratory at Fort Monmouth,
New Jersey in 1953. The laboratory had employed many Jewish engineers from New York. Many of
the civilian employees there were members of the left-leaning Populist Front. In fact, Julius
Rosenberg once worked there. Many of the workers have been inspected and cleared by the government.
The army was already reexamining the entire workforce in 1953.Nevertheless, McCarthy insisted
on opening up an investigation into the matter. McCarthy eventually gave up the investigation
after months of quarreling with the army.
The Irving Peress Case
After giving up his investigation on the Army Signal Corps, McCarthy's
committee began to concentrate on Irving Peress, an Army dentist. Peress had invoked the Fifth
Amendment when filling out the army's questionnaire. Even though he was put under military
surveillance, Peress was still promoted to Major. The army eventually found the paperwork that
called for his dismissal and Peress was quickly discharged.
McCarthy then launched a campaign to criticize the army for allowing Peress to be promoted.
When interrogating General Ralph Zwicker, the senator demanded that the general should reveal
some names. Zwicker refused because he could not violate executive order. In response, McCarthy
rudely insulted the general by comparing his intelligence to that of a "five year old child."
McCarthy's treatment of the general generated a lot of hostility from the press and the American
public.
In retaliation for McCarthy's investigation, the Army accused McCarthy's aide Roy Cohn of
trying to force the Army into giving special treatment to his friend G. David Schine.
The Televised Hearings
The Senate then started hearings into the Peress matter. The investigations and hearings
between the Army and McCarthy was televised live to the public. For two months, Americans watched
on as McCarthy bully witnesses and called "point of order" to make crude remarks.
The climax
came on June 9. Representing the Army was Joseph Welch. As the Welch was questioning Cohn,
McCarthy intervened and said,
I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher, whom he
recommended, incidentally, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years
a member of an organization which was named, oh year and years ago, as the legal bulwark of
the Communist party.
Here, McCarthy was referring to Fred Fisher, a young associate in Welch's law firm. Fisher
had refused to come to the hearings because he was once affiliated with the National Lawyers
Guild. In response, Welch said he did not let Fisher come to the hearing because he did not
want to hurt "the lad" on national television. Welch then urged McCarthy to drop the issue.
Nevertheless, McCarthy persisted in questioning Fisher's background. At this point Welch exclaimed,
Welch: You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left
no sense of decency?
At this point, the entire American public viewed McCarthy with disdain. On television, the
senator from Wisconsin came off as cruel, manipulative and reckless.
The Final Days
The hearings were not the only components that eroded McCarthy's credibility.
Earlier in the year, the journalist Edward R. Murrow had aired a documentary that showed how
McCarthy's charges were groundless and how he had used bullying techniques to harass individuals.
By June, the senator's Gallup Poll ratings fell from 50% to 34%.
On December 2, the Senate voted to censure Joe McCarthy by a margin of sixty-seven to twenty-two.
Driven by depression from being censured, Joe McCarthy resorted to alcohol, which greatly
worsen his health. On May 2, 1957, Joe McCarthy died from acute hepatitis and was buried in
Appleton, Michigan.
"... During the 1950s Red Scare, America's first drug czar fed the opiate addiction of America's most feared senator. Loved or hated, McCarthy remains a legend. Why is his drug habit so little known? ..."
"... Joe McCarthy, the late senator from Wisconsin who built his reputation by whipping up the anti-Communist hysteria sweeping America at the beginning of the Cold War, has long been widely viewed as an object lesson in the abuse of power. His style of politics-demagoguery, paranoia and, worst of all, witch-hunts-has been named McCarthyism, and in recent years some politicians have emerged who would wear the label proudly. For people who have struggled with addiction, however, McCarthy-an alcoholic and opiate addict-offers a provocative question about the limits of our own anti-stigma views. ..."
"... In fact, McCarthy seems to be almost a role model for Cruz, who in 2010 upbraided his alma mater, Harvard Law School, for harboring a dozen communists on its faculty. ..."
"... The fact that he suffered from severe alcoholism is well known. But the fact that by many accounts, he was also addicted to opiates remains almost as hidden as it was during his lifetime. ..."
"... Consumer Reports, ..."
"... Ladies Home Journal ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Flowers in the Blood: the Story of Opium ..."
During the 1950s Red Scare, America's first drug czar fed the opiate addiction of
America's most feared senator. Loved or hated, McCarthy remains a legend. Why is his drug habit
so little known?
Joe McCarthy, the late senator from Wisconsin who built his reputation by whipping up the anti-Communist
hysteria sweeping America at the beginning of the Cold War, has long been widely viewed as an object
lesson in the abuse of power. His style of politics-demagoguery, paranoia and, worst of all, witch-hunts-has
been named McCarthyism, and in recent years some politicians have emerged who would wear the label
proudly. For people who have struggled with addiction, however, McCarthy-an alcoholic and opiate
addict-offers a provocative question about the limits of our own anti-stigma views.
By the peak of his power in 1953, McCarthy's allegations of "Communist subversion" had wrecked
havoc on virtually every level of government-from scores of federal employees whose careers were
ruined by unfounded charges of "treason" to decorated war heroes to highly respected statesmen. McCarthy
even characterized the entire Democratic Party as the "party of treason."
Not surprisingly, there is a long tradition of right-wing pols and pundits who see McCarthy as
a misunderstood hero. Sen. Ted Cruz, the newly elected Tea Party Republican from Texas, has already
won widespread comparisons to McCarthy for his innuendo-laced pronouncements about Democratic members
of Congress and presidential appointees such as Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary. Cruz has
welcomed the criticism as "a sign that perhaps
we're doing something right." In fact, McCarthy seems to be almost a role model for Cruz, who in
2010 upbraided his alma mater, Harvard Law School, for harboring a dozen
communists on its faculty.
A larger-than-life figure of enduring influence, the story of Joe McCarthy would seem to offer
little in the way of surprises. The fact that he suffered from severe alcoholism is well known. But
the fact that by many accounts, he was also addicted to opiates remains almost as hidden as it was
during his lifetime.
That Capitol Hill was rife with drinking and even drugging was an open secret in the 1950s, but
the "private" lives of political figures remained largely unpublicized. This protected McCarthy's
favorable reputation with the American public from the stinging stigma attached to alcoholism and
drug addiction. (There is some speculation that his opiate addiction was the result of either treatment
for "chronic pain" or treatment by sympathetic doctors to help fortify the hangover-hobbled senator
to get him through the day. But he may have had a personality disorder; a friend remarked once that
he "operates in his own moral universe.")
Yet even in the current age of celebrity snort-and-tell publicity, when nothing seems capable
of shocking, the method in which McCarthy's drugs were supplied is, well, shocking.
According to the country's first de-facto drug czar, Harry Anslinger, McCarthy's addiction was
enabled by the federal government. Anslinger, who served as chief of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
from 1930 to 1962, is credited with successfully demonizing "marijuana" as causing addiction and
insanity, murder and mayhem. More than any other political figure, Anslinger was responsible for
criminalizing opiates and its users. And his word was gospel when it came to the country's nascent
war on drugs.
In his 1961 memoir, The Murderers, Anslinger wrote about finding out, in the 1950s, that
a prominent senator (whom he left unnamed) was addicted to morphine. When confronted by Anslinger,
the politician refused to stop, even daring Anslinger to reveal his addiction, saying it would cause
irreparable harm to the "Free World." Anslinger responded to this gambit by securing the lawmaker
a steady supply of dope from a Washington, DC, pharmacy. (Morphine taken by prescription was, then
as now, legal.)
Anslinger's acquiescence was a testament to just how feared McCarthy was in his heyday. Few dared
to speak above a whisper about his evident alcoholism. "[He] went on for some time, guaranteed his
morphine because it was underwritten by the Bureau," Anslinger wrote. "On the day he died I thanked
God for relieving me of my burden."
Beltway insiders guessed that the smack-addicted senator's bullying threats and bombastic appeals
to patriotism-not to mention the fact that he had died in office-pointed to the late Joseph McCarthy.
Anslinger, however, refused to reveal the name to reporters. The story dropped out of circulation
until 1972, when a landmark study on the effects of narcotics, issued by Consumer Reports,
repeated it (still with no name attached) in a chapter on "eminent narcotic addicts."
Even in the current age of celebrity snort-and-tell publicity, when nothing seems capable of
shocking, the method in which McCarthy's drugs were supplied is, well, shocking.
During the Army-McCarthy hearings, which riveted Americans to their small black-and-white television
sets in 1954, McCarthy's combustible mix of grandiosity and paranoia was on full self-destructive
display. Every so often a senator on the subcommittee would remind viewers-among whom McCarthy's
favorability ratings were falling by the week-of the real reason for the proceedings: an investigation
of charges that McCarthy had tried to blackmail the Army into giving special favors to a McCarthy
aide who had been drafted. All spring, McCarthy played to the cameras in his deep-throated baritone,
using the hearings to preach "communist infiltration" at all levels of government (including the
Army), and appealing to what he called the "real jury-the 16 million television viewers out there."
But then Army chief counsel Joseph Welch confronted McCarthy over his attempt to blacken the reputation
of a young Welch associate, for purportedly joining a "Communist-front" lawyers organization. When
McCarthy persisted, a visibly shaken Welch famously upbraided him with these words: "Senator. You
have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
The packed hall burst into applause.
By the time the gavel fell on the hearings, McCarthy could be seen desperately haranguing an empty
chamber. Having finally gone too far, he was censured by a slim majority of his peers. Neither the
career nor the man himself ever recovered; he died three years later. McCarthy's last years were
not pretty. He was in and out of the hospital with exhaustion, broken bones, failing organs. Apt
to suddenly appear on crutches, or with his arm in a sling, he fluctuated noticeably in weight. His
official cause of death, "noninfectious, seldom fatal, hepatitis, cause unknown," is not consistent
with the acute alcoholic's liver disease that is generally thought to have killed him.
McCarthy's opiate addiction became public fodder only after Anslinger's death. A 1978 article
in, of all places, Ladies Home Journal named McCarthy as the senator in Anslinger's autobiography.
"Agents who worked under [Anslinger] claim that the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy was addicted to morphine
and regularly obtained his narcotics through a druggist near the White House, authorized by Anslinger
to fill the prescription," Maxine Cheshire wrote.
Given Cheshire's credentials as a respected Washington Post reporter, the report was
treated not as gossip but as news, and widely disseminated. United Press International (UPI) put
it starkly, "[McCarthy] was a morphine addict who had his drugs supplied by the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics for the sake of national security."
In Flowers in the Blood: the Story of Opium , a 1981 investigation into the history of
opium use, addiction and interdiction, Dean Latimer reported that the relationship between Anslinger
and McCarthy was more complicated and hypocritical than Anslinger had ever let on. Just when the
top drug-enforcer was supplying McCarthy with his government-approved pharmaceutical smack, the two
worked hand in hand to pin the country's burgeoning heroin trade on a Communist Chinese plot, even
though the trafficking was clearly a mafia-controlled operation. Such a fiction would have conveniently
served the federal government's relaxed policy toward organized crime. (During his 40-year reign,
FBI chief
J. Edgar Hoover never even acknowledged Cosa Nostra's very existence.)
The last mainstream mention of McCarthy's morphine addiction that this writer has uncovered dates
back to 1989, when the Philadelphia
Inquirer attacked scholarship supporting Cheshire's findings. By now, of course, anyone
who could have authoritatively confirmed the story is long dead.
McCarthy was undoubtedly a man who wrestled with more than his share of private demons that he
was only too eager to unleash on the nation. His exploitation of his country's greatest fears have
made him a polarizing figure. To most, he is a cautionary tale about the abuse of power. But to some,
he is an exemplar of the principle that, as the late Arizona senator Barry Goldwater famously said,
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Given the current climate of polarization in our
national politics, it is not surprising that McCarthy-as-myth has made a comeback.
For the recovery community, there is a special question in the story of Joe McCarthy. Whether
omitted by those who would rehabilitate him or advertised by those who would vilify him, his addiction
is viewed as a shameful "scarlet letter." For those of us who view addiction as a disease to be treated
with sympathy-and who reserve none of that emotion for McCarthy the demagogue-coming to terms with
McCarthy the addict is, to say the least, challenging.
Matt Harvey is an award-winning freelance journalist whose writing has appeared on
AnimalNY.com , Black Book, the New York
Post and the New York Press, among other publications. He lives in Manhattan.
Also historically moronic,
since China had become increasingly isolationist from the 16th century on. This is not to
say that China has not been deliberately annoying their neighbors lately, especially in the
South China Sea, however. Clearly China has been extending its influence, mostly
economically, around the world, especially in Africa, for a couple of decades now, but I do
not see this as any different from what we do in the same regions. It is certainly not
nearly as troubling as what Russia has been doing under Putin.
In Final Oliver Stone Interview, Putin Predicts When Russia-US Crisis Ends
Jun 20, 2017 | www.forbes.com
But with Trump in the White House, the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory is one reality TV
show the news media can't shake. Stone's love for foreign policy intrigue at least makes
him a Putin kindred spirit here. America's age old fear of the Russians, has made Putin
public enemy number one and Stone his sounding board. For some unhappy campers, like John
McCain, Putin has " no moral equivalent " in the United States. He's a dictator , a war
criminal and tyrant .
"You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What
changes?" Stone asks him.
"Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules
the world," he says. Then, solemnly, "There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery
to bury us."
In the last installment of the Putin interviews, the Russian leader admitted to liking
Trump. "We still like him because he wants to restore relations. Relations between the two
countries are going to develop," he said. It's a sentence very few in congress would say,
and almost no big name politicians outside of Trump would imagine saying on television. On
Russia, you scold. There is no fig leaf.
In a recent sanctions bill in the senate, only Republicans Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted
against it, making for a 97-2 landslide in favor of extra-territorial sanctions against
Russian companies, namely oil and gas.
Stone asked him why did he bother hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails if
he believed nothing would change on the foreign policy front.
STONE: Our political leadership and NATO all believe you hacked the election.
PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even
Russia, being capable of seriously influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC,
but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie.
They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will
blame Russia. But Trump had his finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to
pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to someone
else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes.
Just then, editors cut to a video of Trump talking about Putin.
TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I
won't.
PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They
are always blaming Russians, like antisemites are always blaming the Jews.
The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting
and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about
Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world."
He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It
was Winston Churchill that started the Cold War from London, despite having respect for
Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin.
"... It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of
US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! ..."
"... Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by and large
we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even
if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere. ..."
"... Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies and special
services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms
of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do you believe
you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live? ..."
It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop
of US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! Reply
Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 04:23 PM
"Hence my suggesting Putin is just acting like all great powers must act to be great powers "
Wrong. Putin actually has some respect for UN. Unlike Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Trump. American exceptionalism is pretty
toxic thing that poison the US foreign policy. Something like far right movements poison discourse in their respective countries.
Putin slept over Obama/Nuland gambit in Ukraine. And Russia paid a huge price for that. Less then Ukrainians (who are now experiencing
Central African level of poverty) but still huge.
I think he should resist US imperial advances (sugarcoated as "export of democracy") more strongly. But that's just me.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety.
I have not once seen any direct proof of Russia's interference in the presidential election in the USA.
We have talked about it with former president Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence.
When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell
you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's
how I saw it.
I have already told you, and I can say it again, that today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and
camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it is possible
to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.
Modern technology is very sophisticated and subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid
of all the illusions. That's one thing. The other thing is that I am deeply convinced that no interference from the outside,
in any country, even a small one, let alone in such a vast and great power as the United States, can influence the final outcome
of the elections. It is not possible. Ever.
Megyn Kelly: But the other side says is it was only 70,000 votes that won Trump the election, and therefore influencing
70,000 people might not have been that hard.
Vladimir Putin: The Constitution of the United States and the electoral legislation are structured in such a way
that more electors can vote for a candidate who is backed by fewer voters. And such situations do occur in the history of the
United States. True, isn't it?
Therefore, if we were to discuss some kind of political and social justice, then probably that electoral legislation needs
to be changed and bring a situation where the head of state would be elected by direct secret ballot and so there will be direct
tabulation of votes that can be easily monitored. That's all there is to it. And there will be no need for those who have lost
the elections to point fingers and blame their troubles on anybody.
Now, if we turn this page over, I will tell you something that you most likely know about. I don't want to offend anyone,
but the United States, everywhere, all over the world, is actively interfering in electoral campaigns in other countries. Is
this really news to you?
Just talk to people but in such a way (to the extent it is possible for you) so as to convince them that you're not going
to make it public. Point your finger to any spot on the world's map, everywhere you'll hear complaints that American officials
interfere in their political domestic processes.
Therefore, if someone, and I am not saying that it's us (we did not interfere), if anybody does influence in some way or
attempts to influence or somehow participates in these processes, then the United States has nothing to be offended by. Who
is talking? Who is taking offense that we are interfering? You yourselves interfere all the time.
Megyn Kelly: That sounds like a justification.
Vladimir Putin: It does not sound like justification. It sounds like a statement of fact. Each action invites appropriate
counteraction, but, again, we don't need to do that because I did not tell you this without a reason, both you personally and
other members of the media, recently I was in France and I said the same things.
Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by
and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And
in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere.
Megyn Kelly: You had said for months that Russia had nothing to do with the interference of the American election,
and then this week you floated the idea of patriotic hackers doing it. Why the change and why now?
Vladimir Putin: It's just that the French journalists asked me about those hackers, and just like I told them, I
can tell you, that hackers may be anywhere. They may be in Russia, in Asia, in America, in Latin America. There may be hackers,
by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario?
In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information.
And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. Let us recall
the assassination of President Kennedy.
There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct,
and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities
available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia
in the process. Now, the candidate for the Democratic Party, is this candidate universally beloved in the United States? Was
it such a popular person? That candidate, too, had political opponents and rivals.
Megyn Kelly: Let's move on. A special counsel has been appointed to investigate contacts between your government
and the Trump campaign. You have said that your ambassador Kislyak was just doing his job. Right? So, what exactly was discussed
in those meetings?
Vladimir Putin: There were no sessions. You see, there were no sessions. When I saw that my jaw dropped.
Megyn Kelly: No meetings between Ambassador Kislyak and anybody from the Trump campaign?
Vladimir Putin: No clue. I am telling you honestly. I don't know. That's an ambassador's every day, routine work. Do you
think, an ambassador from any place in the world or from the US reports to me daily as to whom he meets with and what they
discuss? It's just absurd. Do you even understand what you are asking me?
Megyn Kelly: Well, you're his boss.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, his boss is the foreign minister. Do you think I have the time to talk to our ambassadors all over
the world every day? This is nonsense. Don't you understand that this is just some kind of nonsense. I don't even know with
whom he met there. Had there been something out of the ordinary, something remarkable he of course would have advised the minister
and the minister would have informed me. Nothing of that happened.
... ... ...
Megyn Kelly: Many Americans hear the name, Vladimir Putin. And they think, "He runs a country full of corruption,
a country in which journalists, who are too critical, could wind up murdered, a country in which dissidents could wind up in
jail or worse." To people who believe that, what is your message?
Vladimir Putin: I want to say that Russia is developing along a democratic path, this is without question so. No
one should have any doubts about that. The fact that, amidst political rivalry and some other domestic developments, we see
things happen here that are typical of other countries, I do not see anything unusual in it.
We have rallies, opposition rallies. And people here have the right to express their point of view. However, if people,
while expressing their views, break the current legislation, the effective law in place, then of course, the law enforcement
agencies try to restore order.
I am calling your attention to something that I discussed recently when on a trip to France and in my discussions with other
European colleagues. Our police force, fortunately, so far, do not use batons, tear gas or any other extreme measures of instilling
order, something that we often see in other countries, including in the United States.
Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies
and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how
things stand in terms of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect
in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and
to teach us how we should live?
We are ready to listen to our partners, ready to listen to appraisals and assessments when it is done in a friendly manner,
in order to establish contacts and create a common atmosphere and dedicate ourselves to shared values. But we absolutely will
not accept when such things are used as a tool of political struggle. I want everybody to know that. This is our message.
The New York Times steps up its anti-Russia campaign
21/06/2017
The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian
meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up
support for war with Russia.
....................
Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine investigation by journalists. Instead, the
main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists of taking dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not a
single case did these officials offer evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases
like "we assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than previous assertions
that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war that has killed more than one million people.
Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul Buck Party Consensus on Russia and Iran Sanctions
Investigative journalist Max Blumenthal explains that these sanctions punish Russia and Iran and unnecessarily intensifies the
conflict between the US and these countries
WASHINGTON, June 15 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday after he voted against a bill that
would impose new sanctions on Iran and Russia:
"I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our
elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep
concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in
Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the
negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed
between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened
tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle
East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."
A rival foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election
and leaving every indication that it's coming back for more - but President Trump doesn't seem to care.
The unprecedented nature of Russia's attack is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent weeks, but it shouldn't be. American
intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia took direct aim at the integrity of American democracy, and yet after almost
five months in office, the commander in chief appears unconcerned with that threat to our national security. The only aspect of
the Russia story that attracts his attention is the threat it poses to the perceived legitimacy of his electoral win.
If not for the continuing investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians - and whether Mr.
Trump himself has obstructed that investigation - the president's indifference would be front-page news.
So let's take a moment to recall the sheer scope and audacity of the Russian efforts.
Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email
accounts of...
Why critique this campaign against Russia
As if the kremlin may to have interfered and even collaborated with trump operatives to do it
Anything less would be dereliction of duty by a great powers leadership
Point out the motivation
Which is indeed a new forward policy on Russian containment by the deep state
As we now call the corporate planted cultivated and coddled security apparatus
With its various media cut thrus cut outs and compadres
Yes the NYT and the WP
Both are working with the deep state
Once called the invisible government
Much as they have in he past
Why I like he color revolution analogy
These media titans are working with the DS
Because they want to topple trump like they wanted to topple Nixon
And to a lesser extent wobble Reagan
It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US
soldiers' blood to the Balts.
Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague!
Important, incisive perspective or argument, but a direction seldom taken. A Cold War sort of atmosphere makes us wary of using
any such argument, and we have been forming a Cold War environment for several years now. This atmosphere by the way involves
the way in which China is generally regarded, and I believe colors economic analysis even among academics.
"... The wealthy and powerful forces which control both of those influential centers in the formation of public opinion were desperate to regain control of the narrative, which has been slipping away from them at an increasing velocity since the advent of social media, and since the parallel growth of a broad spectrum of information networks with absolutely no interest in currying favor with the mighty, or in defending the status quo. ..."
"... As soon as the term "Fake News" appeared, Barack Obama pounced on it, and in a joint appearance in 2016 with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, used his worldwide microphone and bully pulpit – if only he had done so occasionally to sound the alarm about the approaching environmental crisis, or to express outrage about racism or police brutality, or to challenge war profiteers! – to announce his deep concern that "Fake News" was making it "difficult to govern" (for more on this and the struggle against corporate/government presstitute propaganda, see my article "Hope Is Our Enemy: Fighting Boiling Frog Syndrome"). ..."
"... This clumsy and panicky maneuver has deservedly met with far less success than Obama's incredibly successful propaganda sally against Russia and Vladimir Putin, which has captivated the paranoid fantasies of many millions of Americans and Europeans who desperately want to believe that NATO countries are virtuous and innocent, and are threatened by ruthless and aggressive foreigners who are responsible for the spreading chaos in the West. ..."
"... As one of his final acts in office, President Chameleon slapped new sanctions on Russia and deported Russian diplomats: after eight years, his transformation from Nobel Laureate and supposed apostle of peace to McCarthyite New Cold Warrior was complete, and vast numbers of angry Hillaroids were quickly on board the Blame Russia Express, full of self-righteous anger and the conviction that someone had stolen the election and that the usual suspects were obviously the guilty party. ..."
"... Things haven't gone so well for the "Fake News" campaign, however. Too many people could and can see disturbing patterns that ring true, if they spend enough time looking at truthful, objective analysis of the world around us, and there is quite a lot of it available via the internet. ..."
"... More people are spending more and more time on the internet and social media, where presstitute media lose the natural advantages they once had in a world dominated by government-regulated, corporate-financed TV, radio, and print news. ..."
"... It turns out that many of the best-informed writers see the world utterly differently than do the corporate and government shills who determine the "news" content in mainstream media. ..."
"... Social Democrats ..."
"... Christian Democrats ..."
"... The US military is by far the greatest polluter on Earth. ..."
"... I consider that an Orwellian assault on language. "Extremism" is what I oppose. Extreme wealth. Extreme greed. Extreme militarism. Extreme suicidal and ecocidal environmental destruction. Extreme governmental authority. Extreme stupidity. ..."
We have had a certain amount of success in exposing the amorphous and mendacious term "Fake News"
for what it is: a tool in a major campaign of propaganda against dissenting independent journalism
and political writing, a campaign perpetrated by governments and corporate media. The wealthy
and powerful forces which control both of those influential centers in the formation of public opinion
were desperate to regain control of the narrative, which has been slipping away from them at an increasing
velocity since the advent of social media, and since the parallel growth of a broad spectrum of information
networks with absolutely no interest in currying favor with the mighty, or in defending the status
quo.
As soon as the term "Fake News" appeared, Barack Obama pounced on it, and in a joint
appearance in 2016 with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, used his worldwide microphone
and bully pulpit – if only he had done so occasionally to sound the alarm about the approaching environmental
crisis, or to express outrage about racism or police brutality, or to challenge war profiteers! –
to announce his deep concern that "Fake News" was making it "difficult to govern" (for more on this
and the struggle against corporate/government presstitute propaganda, see my article "Hope Is Our
Enemy: Fighting Boiling Frog Syndrome").
This clumsy and panicky maneuver has deservedly met with far less success than Obama's incredibly
successful propaganda sally against Russia and Vladimir Putin, which has captivated the paranoid
fantasies of many millions of Americans and Europeans who desperately want to believe that NATO countries
are virtuous and innocent, and are threatened by ruthless and aggressive foreigners who are responsible
for the spreading chaos in the West.
As one of his final acts in office, President Chameleon slapped new sanctions on Russia and
deported Russian diplomats: after eight years, his transformation from Nobel Laureate and supposed
apostle of peace to McCarthyite New Cold Warrior was complete, and vast numbers of angry Hillaroids
were quickly on board the Blame Russia Express, full of self-righteous anger and the conviction that
someone had stolen the election and that the usual suspects were obviously the guilty party.
Things haven't gone so well for the "Fake News" campaign, however. Too many people could and
can see disturbing patterns that ring true, if they spend enough time looking at truthful, objective
analysis of the world around us, and there is quite a lot of it available via the internet.
More people are spending more and more time on the internet and social media, where presstitute
media lose the natural advantages they once had in a world dominated by government-regulated, corporate-financed
TV, radio, and print news.
It turns out that many of the best-informed writers see the world utterly
differently than do the corporate and government shills who determine the "news" content in mainstream
media.
Which brings us to one of the latest victims in the assault on language by the 1% and their pawns
in the presstitute media: the word "extremism".
Here in the European Union where I live, this word is currently heard so often in the traditional
media – along with another victimized word being brutalized almost non-stop, "populist" – that even
poorly-educated persons who aren't sure exactly what is meant can understand that they must mean
something very, very bad.
If any such confused persons should take the time to pay closer attention and attempt to ascertain
what it is that makes these "extremists" and "populists" so deplorable and dangerous, they may soon
notice that at least one of these words, "extremist", has a pretty nebulous field of application.
According to major sources of conventional wisdom in the EU, terrorists are "extremists". But "extremism",
more generally, is also applied casually to nearly any political parties and interest groups to the
Left and the Right of the large (if shrinking in some countries like France) parties called "people's
parties" (Volksparteien) here in Germany: the no-longer-socialist Social Democrats who are
allegedly center-left, the pseudo-Christian Christian Democrats who portray themselves as
center-right, and even the thoroughly compromised and faded-to-brown Green Party , which
has gone to great lengths and engaged in stupendous contortions of deliberate conformism to achieve
its modern status as a pillar of the established order, a long journey from its radical roots in
the 1980s.
As you may have deduced from my snarky tone, I find myself firmly ensconced among the so-called
"extremists" of the Left.
What, one may legitimately ask, are the views which have led to this branding as a dangerous individual?
Do I advocate keeping a stock of Molotov Cocktails handy for quick use when the shit starts to fly?
I do not.
Do I engage in plots to overthrow the "legitimate" government and spread chaos throughout the
EU? Do I support terrorism? I do not. While I have grave reservations about the ostensible "legitimacy"
of a number of the governments named, and have major issues with the extent to which they are in
thrall to American imperial foreign/military policy and the destructive austerity policies of the
IMF and World Bank and Big Finance, you will find no blueprints for violent revolution at my house.
I pay taxes and comply with bureaucratic governmental requirements. And as far as terrorism goes,
I would even argue that it is NATO countries' complicity in American imperial designs and hegemony
which is the source of most terrorism and is thus, in reality, "extreme" (see my recent article "Russia
Didn't Do It").
Am I armed? I am not. I have never owned a gun. My only weapon is the keyboard at which I now
write.
Do I support dangerous political organizations? I support the German party "Die Linke" (The Left),
which is the largest opposition party in Germany's Parliament, the Bundestag, and a full participant
in the national electoral process, having won around 14% of the vote in the last election. AHHH
now we're getting somewhere. "Die Linke" is accused quite regularly in the corporate and government
media of being "extreme".
And why? What positions does the party hold which are considered dangerous?
Okay I guess I'll have to come clean. Here are the radical, dangerous, "extremist" positions
I support when I advocate more influence for this political party:
An end to weapons exports from Germany, especially into crisis regions, but more broadly, in principle.
The disbanding of NATO, which was formed as an allegedly defensive alliance against the "Warsaw
Pact" or communist military bloc led by the Soviet Union – which no longer exists. An end to German
participation in overseas military intervention (such as the current activity in Afghanistan).
A more extensive social system which builds more low-cost housing and offers greater protection
for the rights of workers and less affluent citizens – rights which were scaled back by the program
"Agenda 2010" to make the German economy more "competitive".
Active measures by government to stop the widening of the gap between rich and poor which, although
not yet as profound in Germany as in the USA, is heading in the same direction.
Higher taxes on the wealthy.
A much more independent position on the world stage for Germany and the EU, with an end to EU
servility to the USA.
Fundamental reform of the EU, with less power for Big Finance in its deliberations and economic
policies, which have created great hardship in Greece, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere.
In addition, there is my allegedly "extreme" position on the environment, which is not so much
a priority for "Die Linke" but is the most important issue of all for me personally. I am convinced
that only a radical transformation of the world economy can save this planet, including most life
on Earth. I believe this can only come about through an end to industrial capitalism: a ban on most
fossil fuels, an end to the production of most plastics, an end to most beef production and strict
organic regulation of all meat production, and worldwide mandatory measures to clean up the poisonous
residue of the current system which is killing the planet. This will necessarily involve huge cuts
in most military structures and war-making as well. The US military is by far the greatest polluter
on Earth.
For these views, and my concomitant rejection of the large political parties in the EU and the
USA which have done almost nothing to save the planet that was not outweighed by massive destruction
– parties which thus, in the name of "realism", have sold our future to the rich and may have doomed
all life on this planet, as scientific opinion is near unanimous that time is short – for these views
I am labeled an "extremist".
I consider that an Orwellian assault on language. "Extremism" is what I oppose. Extreme wealth.
Extreme greed. Extreme militarism. Extreme suicidal and ecocidal environmental destruction. Extreme
governmental authority. Extreme stupidity.
But Nunes complained on the radio show Monday that Democrats want to look now into accusations that Trump committed obstruction
of justice because, he asserted, the probe so far has turned up "no evidence of collusion" between the president and the Russians.
"Republicans are getting tired of what appears to be investigations without a crime," Nunes said. "If someone doesn't pull a Russian
out of a hat soon," he said, people "have got to question what is going on."
People who share dangerous ideas don't necessarily believe them.
The catastrophe wasn't what it seemed. It was an inside job, people whispered. Rome didn't have
to burn to the ground.
Nearly 2,000 years ago, after the
Great Fire of Rome leveled most of the city, Romans questioned whether the emperor Nero had ordered
his guards to start the inferno so he could rebuild Rome the way he wanted. They said the emperor
had watched the blaze from the the summit of Palatine Hill, the centermost of the seven hills of
Rome, plucking his lyre in celebration as countless people died. There's no evidence of this maniacal
lyre-playing, but historians today still debate whether Nero orchestrated the disaster.
What we do know is this: Conspiracy theories flourish when people feel vulnerable. They thrive
on paranoia. It has always been this way.
So it's understandable that, at this chaotic moment in global politics, conspiracy theories seem
to have seeped out from the edges of society and flooded into mainstream political discourse. They're
everywhere.
That's partly because of the richness of today's informational environment. In Nero's day, conspiracy
theories were local. Today, they're global. The web has made it easier than ever for people to watch
events unfold in real time. Any person with a web connection can participate in news coverage, follow
contradicting reports, sift through blurry photos, and pick out (
or publish ) bad information. The democratization of internet publishing and the ceaseless news
cycle work together to provide a never-ending deluge of raw material that feeds conspiracy theories
of all stripes.
From all over the world, likeminded people congregate around the same comforting lies, explanations
that validate their ideas. "Things seem a whole lot simpler in the world according to conspiracy
theories," writes Rob Brotherton, in his book, Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories.
"The prototypical conspiracy theory is an unanswered question; it assumes nothing is as it seems;
it portrays the conspirators as preternaturally competent; and as unusually evil."
But there's a difference between people talking about outlandish theories and actually believing
them to be true. "Those are two very different things," says Joseph Uscinski, a political science
professor at the University of Miami and the co-author of the book American Conspiracy Theories
. "There's a lot of elite discussion of conspiracy theories, but that doesn't mean that anyone's
believing them any more than they did in the past. People understand what conspiracy theories are.
They can understand these theories as political signals when they don't in fact believe them."
And most people don't, Uscinski says. His data shows that belief in partisan conspiracy theories
maxes out at 25 percent-and rarely reach that point. Imagine a quadrant, he says, with Republicans
on the right and Democrats on the left. The top half of the quadrant is the people of either party
who are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. The bottom half is the people least likely
to believe them. Any partisan conspiracy theory will only resonate with people in one of the two
top-half squares-because to be believable, it must affirm the political worldview of a person who
is already predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories.
"You aren't going to believe in theories that denigrate your own side, and you have to have a
previous position of buying into conspiracy logic," Uscinski says.
Since conspiracy theories are often concerned with the most visible concentration of power, the
president of the United States is a frequent target. "So when a Republican is president, the accusations
are about Republicans, the wealthy, and big business; and when a Democrat is president, the accusations
focus on Democrats, communists, and socialists."
"Right now," he added, "Things are little different. Because of Donald Trump."
As it turns out, the most famous conspiracy theorist in the world is the president of the United
States. Donald Trump spent years spreading birtherism, a movement founded on the idea that his predecessor
was born outside the country and therefore ineligible for the nation's highest office. (Even when
Trump finally admitted in September that he knew Barack Obama was born in the United States,
he attempted to spark a new conspiracy .)
Now, Trump's presidency is the focus of a range of conspiracies and cover-ups-from the
very real investigation he's under to the crackpot ideas about him constantly being floated by
some of his detractors on the left. Like the implication that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are involved
in a money laundering scheme with the Russians, plus countless more theories about who's funneling
Russian money where and to whom.
"The left has lost its fucking mind, and you can quote me on that," Uscinski said. "They spent
the last eight years chastising Republicans about being a bunch of conspiracy kooks, and they have
become exactly what they swore they were not. The hypocrisy is thick and it's disgusting."
Trump's strategy in the face of all this drama has been to treat real and fake information interchangeably
and discredit any report that's unflattering to him. It's why he refers to reputable news organizations
as "fake news," and why he brags about "going around" journalists by tweeting directly to the people.
He wants to shorten the distance between the loony theories on the left and legitimate allegations
of wrongdoing against him, making them indistinguishable.
Pushing conspiracy theories helped win Trump the presidency, and he's now banking on the idea
that they'll help him as president. He's casting himself as the victim of a new conspiracy-a "witch
hunt" perpetrated by the forces that want to see him fail.
"Donald Trump communicates through conspiracy theories," Uscinski says. "You can win the presidency
on conspiracy theories, but it's very difficult to govern on them. Because conspiracy theories are
for losers, and now he's a winner."
What he means is, conspiracy theories are often a way of expressing an imbalance of power by those
who perceive themselves to be the underdog. "But if you control the Supreme Court, the Senate, the
House, and the White House, you can't pull that," Uscinski says. "Just like how Hillary Clinton can't,
in 1998, say her husband's troubles are due to a vast right-wing conspiracy."
Donald Trump may be the most famous conspiracy theorist in America, but a close second is the
Infowars talk-radio personality Alex Jones, who has made a name for himself spewing reprehensible
theories. He claimed the
Sandy
Hook Elementary School massacre was a hoax. He says 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings were
carried out by the U.S. government. Jones has an online store where he peddles products like iodine
to people prepping for the apocalypse.
Jones has long been a controversial figure, but not enormously well known. That's changing. Jones
was a vocal supporter of Trump, who has in turn praised Jones. "Your reputation is amazing,"
Trump told him in an Infowars appearance in 2015. "I will not let you down." Jones has claimed
he is opening a Washington Bureau and considering applying for White House press credentials.
The latest Jones drama is a three-parter (so far): First, the NBC News anchor Megyn Kelly
announced
she had interviewed Jones, and that NBC would air the segment on Sunday, June 18. Next came the backlash:
People disgusted by Jones blasted Kelly and NBC, saying a man whose lies had tortured the families
of murdered children should never be given such a prominent platform. Even Jones joined the fracas,
saying he'd been treated unfairly in the interview. Finally, on Thursday night, Jones claimed he
had secretly recorded the interview, and would release it in full. (So far, he has released what
seems to be audio from a phone conversation with Kelly that took place before the interview.)
Kelly has defended her decision to do the interview in the first place by describing Jones's popularity:
"How does Jones, who traffics in these outrageous conspiracy theories, have the respect of the president
of the United States and an audience of millions?" The public interest in questioning a person like
Jones, she argues, eclipses any worries about normalizing his outlandish views. The questions are
arguably more valuable than the answers.
Many journalists agree with Kelly's reasoning. But it's also true, scholars say, that giving a
platform to conspiracy theorists has measurable harmful effects on society. In 1995, a group of Stanford
University psychologists interviewed people either right before or right after they'd viewed Oliver
Stone's 1991 film JFK , which was full of conspiracy theories. Brotherton, who describes the
findings in Suspicious Minds, says people leaving the movie described themselves as less likely
to vote in an upcoming election and less likely to volunteer or donate to a political campaign, compared
with those walking in. "Merely watching the movie eroded, at least temporarily, a little of the viewer's
sense of civic engagement," Brotherton writes.
There are other examples of real-world consequences of giving platforms to conspiracy theorists,
too. The conspiracy theory known as
Pizzagate , which rose to prominence across websites like 4chan and niche conservative blogs,
resulted in a man firing a weapon in a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor.
The debate over Kelly's interview comes on the heels of another high-profile conspiracy theory
that sent shockwaves through conservative media circles. At the center of that scandal was the TV
host Sean Hannity
pushing a conspiracy theory about the unsolved murder of a Democratic National Committee staff
member and an explosive Fox News report about the murder that was
eventually retracted.
* * *
There's a popular science-fiction podcast, Welcome to Night Vale , developed around the
idea of life in a desert town where all conspiracy theories are true. It was first released in June
2012, the summer before a U.S. presidential election, at a moment when Trump was test-driving a new
anti-Obama conspiracy. "I wonder when we will be able to see @BarackObama's college and law school
applications and transcripts," he
tweeted
the day Night Vale launched. "Why the long wait?"
Joseph Fink, who co-created the podcast, says conspiracy theories today are continuing to function
the way they always have. Conspiracy theories are easy ways to tell difficult stories. They provide
a storyline that makes a harsh or random world seem ordered. "Especially if it's ordered against
you," he says. "Since, then, none of it is your fault, which is even more comforting."
"That said, more extreme conspiracy theories are becoming more mainstream, which is obviously
dangerous," Fink adds. "Conspiracy theories act in a similar way as religious stories: they give
you an explanation and structure for why things are the way they are. We are in a Great Awakening
of conspiracy theories, and like any massive religious movement, the same power it has to move people
also is easily turned into a power to move people against other people."
Look for the last awakening of this sort in the United States, and you'll find a sea of similarities-of
course, as conspiracy theories tell us, it's easy to find connections when you go looking for them.
Several scholars-people who focus on real conspiracies and people who study conspiracy theories-say
the paranoia surrounding the Trump presidency evokes the tumult surrounding the Vietnam War. It's
not that conspiracy theories weren't, at times, rampant before that. In the 1940s and 1950s, McCarthyism
and the trial of Alger Hiss brought with them a surreal spate of hoaxes and misinformation. But it
was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that set off a "general sense of suspicion" that
would permeate the culture for some time, says Josiah Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas:
A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination.
"Part of that was, what occurred almost immediately after the assassination, in the years afterward,
was Vietnam," Thompson said, "And over time, a complete loss of confidence in what ever the government
was saying about Vietnam. That was not just from the presidency, that was from the government itself."
This was also a period in which some of the most dramatic ideas that had been disparaged as conspiracy
theories turned out to be true. "I am not a crook," Nixon had insisted. Less than a year later, he
resigned. Nixon and Trump are compared not infrequently. Not all presidents are so thin-skinned and
antagonistic to the press. Jennifer Senior, reviewing a recent Nixon biography,
wrote that "the similarities between Nixon and Trump leap off the page like crickets." Nixon
may have been increasingly paranoid in the final months of his presidency, but he didn't have access
to the technology that Trump uses to showcase his conspiracy mindedness.
"With real conspiracy theorists, there's a kind of-how to put it-almost a dialectic operative,"
Thompson says. "Like Trump. You have to keep making wilder and wilder pronouncements over time to
hold your audience."
I tell Thompson the idea Uscinski had shared, about how a person can win the presidency on conspiracy
theories, but how they don't work so well once you're president. He seems to agree. "In a campaign,
what you're trying to do is affect people's opinions that will be harvested on one day," he said.
"But governing doesn't have to do with people's opinions. It has to do with facts. That's the real
difference."
When the facts are disputed, of course, you do the best you can with the evidence you can find.
Josiah Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination
, has spent years thinking about all this. When I bring up the enormity of unknown unknowns in
people's understanding of history, Thompson quotes the writer Geoffrey O'Brien: Black Deutschland
by Darryl Pinckney.
*
"And that's the trouble," Thompson says. "What may appear as conspiracy theory at one point turns
out to be truth at another."
I ask Thompson how sure he is about the official explanation of the JFK assassination, that there
was one gunman who fired on the president's motorcade from the Texas School Book Depository.
Thompson believes, based on controversial acoustic evidence, that on November 22, 1963, a shot
was fired from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza-not just from the depository. "The acoustics give
us a kind of template for how the event occurred-these two flurries of shots, separated by about
six seconds." (Thompson later clarified that he believes the flurries of shots were 4.6 seconds apart.)
He says it was two shots in the second flurry that killed Kennedy.
*
*
Thompson pauses.
"Does that make me a conspiracy theorist?"
He laughs.
"After all these years? What do you think?"
* New York Review of Books writer Geoffrey O'Brien, who
first wrote the line in
his review of the Darryl Pinckney novel Black Deutschland.
** Thompson clarified
after publication that he believes the flurries of shots in the Kennedy assassination were 4.6 seconds
apart, not six seconds apart. He believes Kennedy was killed by two shots in the second flurry, not
by the two flurries of shots.
Obama was closely allied with intelligence services. So they now protect him and his close circle.
Notable quotes:
"... Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency or any official, employee, or representative thereof by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to the following: ..."
"... Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the Department of any Intelligence Community member agency and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council regarding, concerning, or related to any request described in Part 1 of this request. ..."
Back in April,
Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for documents related to the unmasking of "the identities
of any U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team" by Obama's
National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Unfortunately, and quite conveniently for members of the Obama
administration, Judicial Watch has been informed by the National Security Council that records related
to their request can not be shared because they " have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential
Library" and will "remain closed to the public for five years."
Here is the full
letter received from the National Secruity Council:
"Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential
Library. You may send your request to the Obama Library. However, you should be aware that under
the Presidential Records Act, Presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after
an administration has left office."
Here was Judicial Watch's full request:
Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar
records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency or any official, employee, or representative
thereof by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to the
following:
Any actual or suspected effort by the Russian government or any individual acting on behalf
of the Russian government to influence or otherwise interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
The alleged hacking of computer systems utilized by the Democratic National Committee and/or
the Clinton presidential campaign.
Any actual or suspected communication between any member of the Trump presidential campaign
or transition team and any official or employee of the Russian government or any individual
acting on behalf of the Russian government.
The identities of U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition
team who were identified pursuant to intelligence collection activities.
Any and all records or responses received by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or
any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council in response
to any request described in part 1 of this request.
Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of
the Department of any Intelligence Community member agency and former National Security Advisor
Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security
Council regarding, concerning, or related to any request described in Part 1 of this request.
Luckily, even if the media and Democrats are unsuccessful at getting Trump impeached in the near
future, 5 years is still enough time to make sure that his reputation is sufficiently tarnished that
he gets booted from office in 2020. Even better, as
The Hill points out today, Joe Biden appears to be getting groomed to take yet another shot at
the White House in 2020 which means we may never actually get a shot at understanding exactly what
happened in the months leading up to the 2016 election.
OK, so let me see if I am understanding this correctly. All any administration has to do is
obfuscate and delay FOIA requests until it leaves Office, then everything remains sealed for 5
years?
This cannot have been the intention behind the FOIA and it make the adminstration completely
untransparent and unaccountable, which of course irrespective in the case of the Obozo administration,
it always was (despite the fact that this was the self-declared "most transparent administration
ever"). This goes nicely along the ability of members of an old administration to decline to appear
before Congressional hearings even under subpoena.
Oh, and BTW the Presidential Library hasn't even been built yet so where are the records now?
Of course, if it ever does get built on the South side of Chicago (if Chicago still exists by
then) there is a very good chance that it will get burnt down and all its contents destroyed.
That would be convenient wouldn't it?
This completely wreaks of "Banana Republic". What if there is a Court Order; does this still
apply?
"Welp, looks like Elmer Fudd Moving & Storage LLC never delivered the requested documents to
the Obama Bath House Library and Massage Parlor as contracted. We have spoken to our lawyers and
are in the process of filing a lawsuit against the former owners of EFM&S even though they are
now domiciled in the Cayman Islands."
To which prosecutor nmewn says: "Don't bother. The mishandling, transfer, theft, tampering
and/or destruction of government property is still a ten year felony. The simple fact it is admitted
you entrusted that property to EFM&S LLC is all the evidence I need to proceed with the prosecution
so, thanks I guess."
"... "You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him. ..."
"... "Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly,
"There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us." ..."
"... PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously
influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie.
..."
"... They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger
on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to
someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes. ..."
"... TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't. ..."
"... PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites
are always blaming the Jews. ..."
"... The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden
in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world."
He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold
War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin. ..."
But with Trump in the White House, the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory is one reality TV show the news media can't shake. Stone's love
for foreign policy intrigue at least makes him a Putin kindred spirit here. America's age old fear of the Russians, has made Putin
public enemy number one and Stone his sounding board. For some unhappy campers, like John McCain, Putin has "
no moral equivalent " in the United States. He's a
dictator , a
war criminal and
tyrant .
"You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him.
"Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly,
"There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us."
In the last installment of the Putin interviews, the Russian leader admitted to liking Trump. "We still like him because he wants
to restore relations. Relations between the two countries are going to develop," he said. It's a sentence very few in congress would
say, and almost no big name politicians outside of Trump would imagine saying on television. On Russia, you scold. There is no fig
leaf.
Stone asked him why did he bother hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails if he believed nothing would change on the
foreign policy front.
STONE: Our political leadership and NATO all believe you hacked the election.
PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously
influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not
a lie.
They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his
finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting
blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes.
Just then, editors cut to a video of Trump talking about Putin.
PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like
antisemites are always blaming the Jews.
The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph
Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old
world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started
the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin.
The audience member explained that as Colbert pressed
Oscar winner Stone - who was promoting his new Vladimir
Putin Showtime series, "The Putin Interviews" - on his
apparent sympathy for the Russian president in spite of
claims about Russian interference in the US election,
Stone, at a disadvantage, tried to shift the talk to
Israel.
The source said they "watched from behind
[their] hands" as Stone said words to the effect of:
"Israel had far more involvement in the US election than
Russia."
The "Platoon" director further challenged Colbert by
saying, "Why don't you ask me about that?" - but we're
told that the host shot back, "I'll ask you about that
when you make a documentary about Israel!"
"... At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue
of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more than
Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned to
the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by challenging Colbert with "Israel had far
more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?" ..."
"... Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again
that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. ..."
At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue
of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more
than Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned
to the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by
challenging Colbert with "Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?"
Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again
that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. Stone was, of course, referring to the fact that the Israel Lobby,
most notably acting through its American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is undeniably a foreign lobby, no less so than
anyone representing the presumed interests of Russia or China. It operates with complete impunity on Capitol Hill and also at state
and local levels and no one dares to require it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would permit
scrutiny of its finances and also end its tax-exempt "educational" status. Nor does Congress or the media see fit to inquire into
AIPAC's empowerment of candidates based on their fidelity to Israel, not to mention the direct interference in the American electoral
process which surfaced most visibly in its support of candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.
The last president that sought to compel the predecessor organization of AIPAC to register was John F. Kennedy, who also was about
to take steps to rein in Israel's secret nuclear weapons program when he was assassinated, which was a lucky break for Israel, particularly
as Kennedy was replaced by the passionate Zionist Lyndon Baines Johnson. Funny how things sometimes work out. The Warren Commission
looked deeply into a possible Cuban connection in the shooting and came up with nothing but one has to wonder if they also investigated
the possible roles of other countries. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission Report failed to examine the possible involvement of Israel
in the terrorist attack in spite of a considerable body of evidence suggesting that there were a number of Israeli-sourced covert
operations running in the U.S. at that time.
Looking back from the perspective of his more than 40 years of military service, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Admiral Thomas Moorer described the consequences of Jewish
power vis-ŕ-vis U.S. policy towards Israel, stating that "I've never seen a president – I don't care who he is – stand up to them
[the Israelis]. It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got
to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government,
they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don't have any idea what goes on."
He also addressed the 1967 Israeli assault on the USS Liberty, saying "Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators
from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels. [And that] Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats
at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most-seriously wounded." He concluded with "our government put Israel's interests
ahead of our own? If so, Why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests?"
It is a question that might well be asked today, as the subservience to Israeli interests is, if anything, more pervasive in 2017
Washington than it was in 2002 when Moorer spoke up. And, as in Moorer's day, much of the partiality towards Israel makes its way
through congress with little or no media coverage lest anyone begin to wonder whose tail is wagging which dog. To put it succinctly,
there is an Israeli hand in much of what the United States does internationally, and the involvement is not intended to do anything
good for the American people.
During the past several weeks alone there has been a flurry of legislation backed by Israel and its Lobby.
One bill might actually have
been written by AIPAC. It is called Senate 722, Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017. The bill has 63 co-sponsors,
most of whom are the usual suspects, but it also included an astonishingly large number of Democrats who describe themselves as progressive,
including Corey Booker and Kamila Harris, both of whom are apparently terrified lest they say "no" to Israel. With 63 co-sponsors
out of 100 senators the bill was certain to pass overwhelmingly, and it was indeed approved 98 to 2, with only Rand Paul and Bernie
Sanders voting "no."
And there's more to S.722 than
Iran – it's subtitle is "An act to provide congressional review and to counter Iranian and Russian governments' aggression." Much
of it is designed to increase sanctions on both Iran and Russia while also limiting the White House's ability to relieve any sanctions
without approval by congress. Regarding Iran, the bill mandates that "Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the
Director of National Intelligence shall jointly develop and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a strategy for deterring
conventional and asymmetric Iranian activities and threats that directly threaten the United States and key allies in the Middle
East, North Africa, and beyond."
ORDER IT NOW
The premise is of course nonsensical as Iran's ability to threaten anyone, least of all the United States, is limited. It is far
outgunned by its neighbors and even more so by the U.S., but it has become the enemy of choice for congress as well as for the former
generals who serve as White House advisers. The animus against Iran comes directly from Israel and from the Saudi Arabians, who have
managed to sell their version of developments in their part of the world through a completely acquiescent and heavily Jewish influenced
western media.
And there's more. A bill has surfaced in the House
of Representatives that will require the United States to "consult" with Israel regarding any prospective arms sales to Arab countries
in the Middle East. In other words, Israel will have a say, backed up undoubtedly by Congress and the media, over what the United
States does in terms of its weapons sales abroad. The sponsors of the bill, one Brad Schneider of Illinois, and Claudia Tenney of
New York, want "closer scrutiny of future military arms sales" to maintain the "qualitative military edge" that Israel currently
enjoys.
Schneider is, of course, Jewish and a life member of AIPAC, so it is hardly as if he is a disinterested party. Tenny runs for
office in New York State, so it is hardly as if she is disinterested either, but the net result of all this is that American jobs
and U.S. international security arrangements through weapons sales will be at least in part subject to Israeli veto. And you know
that is precisely what will happen as Israel could give a damn what happens to the struggling American entity that it so successfully
feeds off of.
And there's still more. Bill HR 672 Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 was
passed
unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 14 th . Yes, I said "unanimously." The bill requires the State
Department of monitor what European nations and their police forces are doing about anti-Semitism and encourages them to adopt "a
uniform definition of anti-Semitism." That means that criticism of Israel must be considered anti-Semitism and will therefore be
a hate crime and prosecutable, a status that is already de facto true in Britain and France. If the Europeans don't play ball, there
is the possibility of repercussions in trade negotiations. The bill was co-sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida and Nita
Lowey of New York, both of whom are Jewish.
There is also a
Senate companion bill on offer in the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act of 2017. The bill will make the Anti-Semitism
Envoy a full American Ambassador and will empower him or her with a full staff and a budget permitting meddling worldwide. The bill
is sponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Marco Rubio of Florida. Gillibrand is unlikely to miss co-sponsoring anything
relating to Israel due to her own self-interest and Rubio wants to be president real bad so he is following the money.
And finally, the U.S. Senate has also approved a resolution
celebrating the 50 th anniversary of Israel's conquest of East Jerusalem. Again, the vote was unanimous. The resolution
was co-sponsored by Senators Charles Schumer and Mitch McConnell, two reptiles who give snakes a bad name and about whom the less
said the better. Schumer is Jewish and has
described himself
as the "shomer" or guardian of Israel in the Senate. That the resolution opposes long established U.S. government policy that
the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank by Israel is in contravention of international law and is an impediment to any
peace process with the Palestinians apparently bothered not even one Senator.
I might note in passing that there has been no Senate resolution commemorating the 50 th anniversary of the bravery
exhibited by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty as they were being slaughtered by the Israelis at the same time as Jerusalem
was being "liberated." There is probably even more to say, to include secret agreements with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies,
but I will stop at this point with one final observation. President Donald Trump traveled to the Middle East claiming to be desirous
of starting serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but it was all a sham. Benjamin Netanyahu took him aside and
came out with the usual Israeli bullshit about the Palestinians "inciting" violence and hatred of Jews and Trump bought into it.
He then went to see Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and
shouted at him for being
a liar and opposed to peace based on what Netanyahu had told him. That is what passes for even-handed in the U.S. government, no
matter who is president. A few days later the Israelis announced the building of the largest bloc of illegal new settlements on the
West Bank since 1992, an action that they claim
is being coordinated with Washington.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once boasted about owning the United States. I guess he was right.
...Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich likened the Russia investigation to going down a rabbit hole where no crime actually
has been committed but people's lives are ruined.
Gingrich said on "This Week" Trump has "a compulsion to counterattack and is very pugnacious" even though that sometimes works
to his detriment.
Gingrich said prosecutors may not find evidence of obstruction against Trump, "but maybe there is going to be perjury. And maybe
there will be – I mean, you go down the list and we have been here before. We watched Comey [when he was deputy attorney general]
appoint [Chicago U.S. Attorney] Patrick Fitzgerald, who was the godfather to Comey's children and Fitzgerald knew there was no crime."
(Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate the leaking of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband
Joseph C. Wilson's statements about whether Saddam Hussein obtained uranium from Niger, contradicting the Bush administration. The
investigation resulted in Lewis "Scooter" Libby pleading guilty to lying to investigators.)
Gingrich said if there is going to be an investigation into Russian influence, investigators also should look into a speech given
by former President Bill Clinton for which he was paid $500,000 and the brother of Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta.
who is a registered agent for a Russian bank.
"I'm happy to look at Russia's relationship. I actually think it would be healthy to have congressional hearings on foreign influence
peddling in the U.S. way beyond the Russians. I think that's important for the future of our democracy," Gingrich said.
"No one, and Comey himself said this in his last testimony, no one has suggested that Donald Trump had anything to do with colluding
with the Russians. There's not a bit of evidence he did."
Gingrich said hires by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller indicate he's politicizing the investigation and Comey also should be
investigated, a sentiment echoed by Trump attorney Jay Sekulow on CNN's "
State
of the Union ."
Much of the left has gone completely bonkers
on this issue. There is now an unholy alliance between the Cold War neocons in Congress and the
Trump haters on the left in regard to Russia. Katha Pollitt's legitimate animosity toward Trump
because of his attitude toward women has unfortunately clouded her judgment vis-ŕ-vis Russia.
However, there is a substantial segment of the left that wants to see better relations with
Russia and is dismayed and disheartened by the relentless hyping of the alleged Russian hacking,
Trump's ties with Russia, etc. The neocons are laughing all the way to a military confrontation
with Russia. Bravo to Victor Navasky and Stephen F. Cohen for continuing to speak truth to
hysteria. And bravo to
The Nation
for doing the same in its editorials.
"... I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper
as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus
and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle
with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you are
going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and claim
vindication. ..."
"... Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting
fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol,"
because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place ..."
"... Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking
of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was a key
player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them inherent,
unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero. ..."
"... Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and demonstrable
mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs" that they have
been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or, more and more often,
an outright, active traitor. ..."
The "historic" appearances of James Comey Chameleon and Jefferson Davis Andersonville Sessions before a Senate committee have come
and gone, leaving us pretty much where we were before. Trump was made to look stupid and thuggish (not exactly front-page news);
his GOP apologists and enablers employed even more ludicrous justifications for said stupidity and thuggery ("Hey, the kid is still
green, he didn't know he was doing anything wrong - not that he did do anything wrong, mind you."); media outlets reaped tons of
ad revenue; twittery was rampant on every side. We all had a jolly good time. But as for the ostensible object of the exercise -
learning more about possible Russian interference in the electoral process, and any part Trump's gang might have had in colluding
with this and/or covering it up - there was not a whole lotta shaking going on.
That's to be expected. For I don't believe we are ever going to see confirmable proof of direct collusion between the Trump gang
and the Kremlin to skew the 2016 election. I don't doubt there is a myriad of ties between Trump and nefarious Russian characters,
all of whom will of necessity have some connection to Putin's authoritarian regime. And there may well be underhanded Trump gang
ties of corruption to the state itself. But I don't think a "smoking gun" of direct collusion with Trump's inner circle in vote tampering
exists. If it did, it would be out by now. It's obvious the intelligence services and FBI were all over the Trump campaign, looking
into Russian ties from many angles.
I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper
as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus
and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle
with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you
are going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and
claim vindication.
Meanwhile, away from the "dramatic hearings" and the all-day permanent Red scare of the "Resistance," the Trump White House and
the Congressional extremists are quietly, methodically, relentlessly transforming the United States into a hideous oligarch-owned,
burned-out, broken-down, looted-out, chaos-ridden, far-right dystopia. Right now, the Senate Republicans are trying to push through,
in secret, a "health-care" bill that is scarcely less draconian than the universally hated House version, and like that bill, consists
of two main parts: a gargantuan tax cut for the very rich and taking away healthcare coverage for millions upon millions of ordinary
citizens, including the most vulnerable people in the nation.
And what did we hear Monday from Democratic staffers? That the Senate Democrats are NOT going to wage a fight to the death to
prevent this monstrosity from being inflicted on the people; they're not "going nuclear," using every possible tactic and procedural
rule to derail the Trumpcare bill, or at least stall it long enough to raise a public outcry against it. And why not? Why, because
the Republicans have promised that no sanctions will be removed on Russia without the Democrats getting a chance to vote on it in
the Senate. This is the kind of misplaced priority I'm talking about.
I won't even get into the fact that progressives and liberals now venerate the intelligence services they used to rightly condemn
for decades of lies and deceit and misinformation and covert murder and, yes, manipulation of our electoral process (not to mention
those of other nations.) And let's put aside how every "anonymous leak" from an "intelligence source" is now treated as gospel -
even though it comes from the same "intelligence sources" that anonymously leaked all that "credible" evidence of Saddam's WMD way
back in caveman times. And told us that Gadafy was about to unleash genocide on his people and was sending in rape squads jacked
up on Viagra, etc., only to sheepishly admit later these claims had been all false after Gadafy had been sodomized and murdered in
the street by NATO-backed Islamic extremists, even as Hillary Clinton laughed out loud and declared, "We came, we saw, he DIED!"
Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting
fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol,"
because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place.
Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking
of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was
a key player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them
inherent, unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero.
Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and
demonstrable mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs"
that they have been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or,
more and more often, an outright, active traitor.
Let's put aside all this for now, disheartening as it is, and focus on this: if the intent is to bring down Trump, then there
is ample material just lying there for the taking - evidence of blatant criminality and corruption that could be taken up right now,
keeping Trump and his whole sick crew tied up in prosecutions, investigations, special committees and independent prosecutors out
the wazoo. The man had known Mafia figures with him at his New Year's celebration in Mar-a-Lago just months ago, for God's sake.
You don't have to pry piss-tapes from the Kremlin to bring down a mook like Trump.
Of course, part of the problem is that a genuinely wide-ranging and thorough investigation of Trump's criminal corruption would
doubtless expose the deep rot at the heart of our system, the incredibly complex entwining of the underworld and the "upper world":
the dirty deals, the tax dodges, the sweetheart contracts, the cut-outs to maintain "deniability," the bribes, the "gifts," the special
arrangements, the corporate espionage, the interpenetration of state and corporate power at every level, even in warfare and diplomacy
- in short, all of the "corrupted currents" that lay behind the gilded facade maintained by our bipartisan elites and their servitors
in the political-media class. If you start to pull too hard on the stinking threads of Trump's criminal entanglements, who knows
what else might come undone, who else might be exposed?
We saw during the last campaign this reluctance to really go after Trump for the string of dodgy deals and frauds he's left across
a decades-long career. Every now and then there would be a quick jab, but even these would usually be obscured by Trump's artful
use of blathering idiocy on Twitter. Was he defrauding veterans and cancer patients with his patently fraudulent charities? "Look
there! Trump just said McCain was a loser for being captured in Vietnam!" Didn't Trump commit criminal fraud in scamming people out
of millions with his fake Trump University? "Look there! Trump's tweeting racist attacks on the judge!" And so off we'd go, fixing
on the galling spectacle of Trump's character, while the focus on actual crime and corruption would recede. This reluctance was evident
in both the GOP primary and in the general election. I kept waiting for the gloves to come off on Trump's dirty deals, but they never
really did. The focus remained on his sleazy character, not his legal dangers; and Trump had long known that the spectacular sleaziness
of his character was the mainspring of his popularity, both as a celebrity and candidate. (And yes, this sleaziness and corruption
was well-known even when Bill and Hillary were wrapping their arms around Donald at his wedding years before.)
Be that as it may, there is still probably more than enough material on the surface for our elites to bring Trump down without
going too deep into the corrupted currents where their own murk might be stirred up. Heck, there might even be enough honest players
in the political circus to lead a multi-front attack on Trump's corruption without worrying about themselves being exposed. If you
really want to bring Trump down - and in that way, cripple or at least hamper the ravages of the extremists who are using him as
their tool - then it seems to me this more straightforward approach would be far more likely to succeed than waiting for some spy
to come in from the cold and put incontrovertible proof of direct collusion in our hands.
But I don't see any sign of this happening anytime soon, if ever. The focus will remain on the Russians, who despite being genetically
inferior lowbrow swindlers are nevertheless capable of orchestrating practically every event in the world, including, I guess, the
rise of Rupert Murdoch and the rightwing media machine, the politicised fundamentalist churches and the thousands of sinister ideological
outfits bankrolled by weird billionaires, all of which have spawned an entire alternative universe in which millions of people now
live, feeding on lies and smears and hatemongering that fuels their prejudices, their fears, their resentments and their anger, and
corrodes their sense of commonality and community with their fellow citizens. I would venture to say that the deliberate cultivation
of this vicious and violent alternative reality - along with the creation of the Electoral College in the 18th century, and the vote
suppression laws passed by billionaire-funded extremists in state legislatures that disenfranchised millions of anti-Trump voters
- had more to do with Trump's victory than any phishing expeditions or email leaking by the Russians.
Again, I'm not saying that the latter didn't happen; it may well be that the people who lied to our faces about yellow cake and
aluminium tubes and vials of sarin and CIA torture, the people who wage drone wars on farmers and wedding parties, the people who
persecute the mentally ill for their own aggrandizement while stirring up needless fear and hatred are now being honourable and truthful
in every single thing they tell us. I genuinely hope so. If they produced that smoking gun from the Kremlin tomorrow and brought
Trump down, I'd be over the moon. But I don't think that is going to happen. And I fear we will find that a great deal of ruin has
been done - and many more promising avenues of attack have been ignored, perhaps for good - while we chase ghosts in the shadowlands
of espionage.
But hey, don't listen to me. I not only write for a publication which was put on a McCarthyite list of "subversives" trumpeted
in the Washington Post (before it had to backpedal), I actually even lived in Russia once, which as we know - in an age
where Louise Mensch is regarded as a credible source by the "Resistance" and all things Russian are tainted - means I am obviously
a Kremlin agent or a Putin fanboy trying to save Comrade Trump from the forces of righteousness. What's more, I know people who still
live in Russia, some of whom are even - gasp! - genetically Russian. (Please don't tell liberal hero James Clapper!) So
of course, all of these people must be Kremlin tools as well - even though they are putting their lives and livelihoods on the line
every day fighting Putin's tyranny, with a courage I doubt we'll see from many of our "Resisters" when Trump finishes with Muslims,
immigrants, African-Americans, the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the insulted and injured of every stripe and finally come for
the "real" people who read the New York Times and watch Rachel Maddow. For these days it's simply impossible to be associated with
Russia in any way, or to question the credibility of our security organs in the slightest, or to suggest possibly better alternatives
for removing Trump's copious rump from the Oval Office, without being shunned by polite progressive society.
So take what I say with a pinch of bread and salt. (The traditional Russian offering of welcome - oh damn, I gave myself away
again!) But if the focus stays largely on Russia, don't be surprised to see Trump sitting on the White House toilet playing with
his tweeter four years from now while Steven Bannon and Richard Spencer plan his re-election campaign.
Virtually every current headline unequivocally shows how US Empire and its Ministry of Propaganda
are lying to the American people. Those in power have been so exposed by alt-media in 2016 that they
are growing more desperate by the day. Right now their biggest lie is blaming Putin and Russia for
being behind everything gone wrong in the world according to the Obama-Clinton-Bush-CIA-Rothschild
crime cabal. The latest claims assert that
Putin's hackers overturned the presidential election results in favor of Donald Trump and this
whopper is currently being pushed as the flimsiest, last gasp excuse to spearhead its hollow "fake
news" crusade in order to both outlaw the truth and
derail Trump's
January 20 th inauguration.
Longtime State Department veteran psychiatrist
Steve Pieczenik , CIA/NSA whistleblower
William Binney, CIA whistleblower Ray McGovern, and former UK ambassador
Craig Murray have all stated that there is zero evidence showing that the Russians "hacked" emails
or interfered with the election outcome in any way.
Credible former CIA officers emphatically state that the emails were leaked, not hacked and that
Putin had nothing to do with it. The 17 US intelligence agencies remain conflicted with the verdict
still out, unable to even arrive at a consensus, despite the FBI's latest cave-in to pressures to
feebly present a belated united front against Russia. Flip flopper
Comey's at it again. Up until a day or so ago, the FBI maintained that there was not enough evidence
to conclude the Russians hacked into DNC records or emails. The Clintons, Obama and their "intelligence"
minions are fast growing irrelevant and impotent as the yearend days count down. What's perfectly
clear is the CIA/MSM liars are acting on orders from the Clinton et al cartel deceitfully politicizing
this meme because they cannot accept the fact that Hillary lost her "anointed" election. The feds'
unending war agenda may soon be collapsing.
Before rushing to lynch mob judgment demonizing Putin once again, an important reminder worth
noting is the
historic track record of the Clintons, Obama, the Bushes and the CIA is that they lie all the
time, both pathologically and professionally as full blown certifiable
psychopaths . They all played a major part in creating and continuing to back
the terrorists al Qaeda, al Nusra and
ISIS in the Middle East and beyond. With perhaps the exception of the
Saul Alinsky -Bill Ayers, "
terrorist-inspired " community organizer and then Illinois
state senator Obama, it's worth mentioning that they all bear guilt in murdering 3000 American
citizens on
9/11 and then shamelessly promoting the boldface lie that Saddam Hussein had
WMD's and
direct links to terrorists. But let's not leave out Pinocchio-nosed Barrack who promised to be the
most open and transparent president in US history and then proceeded to be the
most secretive , least transparent, and perhaps most incompetent president in US history. But
then given the mission to
destroy America from within by the ruling elite that groomed and launched his meteoric rise,
his puppet masters no doubt are very pleased with his record. And as far as the Central Intelligence
Agency goes, as the elite's
private mercenary army , from its very get-go the
CIA's very purpose and everyday business have always been made of
lies and
propaganda .
Instead of blindly blaming the Russians, far more credible sources have posited that at least
one DNC insider –
Seth
Rich – leaked documents and then likely paid for it with his murdered life. Additionally, if
you believe Steve Piecnezik, intelligence operatives launched a soft anti-Clinton counter-coup handing
over the thousands of Clinton-Podesta emails to WikiLeaks. And now we're even learning that US
Homeland Security has been trying to hack into the Georgia state election apparatus at least
ten times. So all these alleged hacks and leaks seem to surfacing internally from sources within
the United States, mostly from operatives working either directly inside the government or political
apparatchik.
Another relevant point worth raising is the indisputable fact that the US government is the most
notoriously guilty entity in the world for constantly
meddling and interfering in other sovereign nations' internal elections and affairs, engaging
in crime after crime
assassinating
foreign leaders , and executing dozens of coups overthrowing sovereign governments. And let's
face it, all the major players on the global stage are guilty of spying on one another, particularly
in cyber-espionage
, again with the US the main culprit. So this whole notion of using the blame game to falsely
accuse other countries of the very same hideous aggressions that Washington is most guilty perpetrating
for well over a century is extremely hypocritical in the least and downright diabolical to the max.
Yet for centuries now this kind of duplicity and hubris is exactly how
American exceptionalism has criminally operated around the globe with total impunity.
The "blame the Russian" game is an old cold war propaganda tactic from way back. History just
keeps repeating itself because the powers-that-shouldn't-be exploit and count on Americans having
a short attention span. Those who witnessed or pay attention to history can recall the cold war era
of the early 1950's and the Red Scare of
McCarthyism
when many people's lives were ruined by dishonestly branding them as so-called communists and
communist sympathizers. Deep state USA is at it once again, unjustly singling out and punishing those
who speak the truth online by again falsely accusing them of being agents of Russian propaganda.
Blacklisting alt-media sites that legitimately report accurate accounts of news events and world
developments by again falsely accusing them as "fake news" sources when the corporate media liars
themselves are infamously guilty of fake news propaganda is just more of the same bogus modus operandi
that the government and mainstream media have been redeploying indefinitely for decades.
Project Mockingbird flourished throughout the cold war from the 1950's right into the 1970's
and beyond when the CIA influenced if not controlled all the biggest news outlets (25 newspapers
and wire agencies) using them to spread Washington's own cold war propaganda. This sinister collusion
between the feds and the press resulted in the imperialistic division of two Asian ethnicities –
the
Koreans and
Vietnamese
people each split into two enemy nations fighting two costly wars killing up to over 7 million
Asians (not to mention 95,000 American soldiers). And when the Senate Church Committee finally exposed
Mockingbird, in 1976 then CIA director George Bush senior was forced to proclaim on paper at least
its "official" end. But subsequent planting of
disinformation
in the foreign press that by design would then spread to the US was yet another covert means
by which the deceitful CIA continued its propaganda control over both US and foreign news markets.
This unholy nexus has also persisted right up till today through such common ties as the all-powerful
Council on Foreign Relations. For many decades the CFR strategically courts and
recruits prominent members from mainstream media as well as the
entertainment industry for the exact same PR purpose of using them to promote deep state propaganda
and collude in corrupt cover-ups to willfully deceive the American public. Then in recent years the
corporatized merging of government and mass media utilizing US military, CIA and FBI
liaisons in Hollywood has only consolidated power and media control into fewer and fewer hands,
with
6 oligarchs in control of the 6 largest mega media giants controlling the outflow of over 90%
of today's news. Virtually every TV show and film out of Hollywood now is pure deep state propaganda
serving for a full century as the best recruitment venue for brainwashing the next generation of
GI's dying on foreign soil battlefields. Hence, what's emerged today is a fascist government
cabal maintaining illegitimate control and authority through false propaganda delivered 24/7 by deep
state surrogate the mainstream media.
But during this US presidential election year, largely due to WikiLeaks, social media and alternative
and independent news, citizens of the world have discovered how corrosively evil in its
criminality
this existing crime cabal is, personified by the Clintons, Obama, and their minions in Washington,
Wall Street and the corporate media. Over the last couple months the Clinton-Podesta connection has
been directly tied to a global child sex trafficking ring operating from the "
life insurance " laptop of Hillary's closest, 20-year aide-
Saudi operative Huma Abedin's husband, disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner. But the pedophilia
network has more recently expanded to include an infamous block of sinister pizza parlors and front
offices in upscale Northwest Washington operating eerily close to the White House (perhaps even closer
through
DC's network of underground tunnels). Enter #Pizzagate .
And through thousands of internet sleuths working together online 24/7, the crumbling, gaping
cracks of this crime cabal wall have been exposed like never before, threatening to bring down the
most powerful Luciferian worshipping
pedophiles at the top of this planet's demonic food chain. And this raw naked exposure of the
diabolical matrix has the guilty party – the Obamas, Bushes, and Clintons panicking and resorting
to extreme desperate measures to hide and conceal the filthy truth of who and what they are. Hence,
in this age of deception and culture of evil, we are now living in a new era of McCarthyism frantically
unleashed to justify their latest attack campaign on steroids to censor and ban all
blacklisted alternative media news sites that provide much needed counterbalancing truth to the
official false narrative lies. The aim here is to eliminate and silence all truth tellers so that
the evildoers – as naked and exposed as they already are, can attempt to hold onto their waning power,
slipping fast now from their control.
By deep state egregiously accusing alt-news of being "agents of
Russian propaganda ," it intends to shut down America's First Amendment right to a free press
– the alternative news, which regularly exposes NSM and gov.corps' propaganda lies. The totalitarian
agenda now being rushed through prior to Trump becoming president has already passed "
anti-Russian propaganda " bills in both chambers of
Congress aimed at banning over 200 targeted alt-news sites on their bogus blacklists. Additionally,
the EU has threatened further tyrannical censorship if co-opted internet ponds Facebook, Google,
Twitter, Microsoft, and Reddit don't eliminate the so-called "fake news" from its social media and
search engines. In effect, a final power grab is being played out right now attempting to usurp,
control and silence the last voice of honest and accurate news accounting of what goes on in this
world. But the crime cabal will fail as the world knows too much already.
Since 9/11 those who question authority refusing to believe the deep state lies have been customarily
discarded as "
conspiracy nuts ." Though for decades this strategy was quite effective, it's now wearing thin
as more people every day are beginning to realize the truth about the previously concealed criminality
endlessly committed by DC puppets and their masters. As a result, deep state's agenda has been to
increasingly criminalize dissidents as potential
homegrown terrorists and radicalized enemies of the state. What we're currently witnessing is
the systematic targeting of both
dissenting individuals and
alternative news organizations as "dangerously" unwanted truth tellers posing the single largest
threat to the crime cabal's continued power and control.
And with only a few remaining weeks, for that reason alone Obama and the Clintons are moving at
breakneck speed to neutralize opposing forces bent on seeking justice by sending them to rot in prison.
Since Soros'
post-election riots have fizzled, Stein's
recount failed and stealing the presidency through pro-Hillary
death threats against Trump electoral voters have one by one fallen short of overturning the
election, silencing alt-news and igniting a war against Russia are their last, "best shot" ploys
that would manufacture the needed national crisis to prevent Trump from assuming office next month.
Who knows? In the few days prior to January 20 th , a false flag perpetrated by Washington
neo-crazies as a last gasp effort to blame Russia "justifying" war against the nuclear power may
still be up their pathetic evil sleeve. That's how desperate these despots are, terrified their
pedo-crimes will soon be their ruin.
In the meantime, yet another draconian law
HR 4919 was just passed in the House. Using the benignly logical rationale of tracking lost victims
suffering from autism or dementia, deep state is now pushing for RFID chips to be implanted in all
people diagnosed with autism and dementia. Similar past measures have authorized the government to
round up
the homeless or those afflicted with
respiratory ailments during the Ebola scare. Operating under the auspices of the
Center for Disease Control (CDC), in mid-August, the CDC proposed to grant itself the unlimited
unconstitutional power to round up and detain citizens en masse without reason or due process, kind
of like the medical bookend to the
2013 FDAA that also obliterates citizens' legal rights and civil liberties. The feds are becoming
increasingly over-the- top in their totalitarian oppression, knowing that for good reason more people
are opposing
mandatory vaccinations for both children and adults as well as proposed mandatory microchips.
Recall that a couple years ago NBC was predicting that next year every American would be
micro chipped .
Like the regretful German pastor
Martin Niemoller's
famous quote decrying each group targeted and taken away by the Nazis without his speaking out, after
the communists, socialists, trade unionists and the Jews, by the time they came for him it was too
late. How far will the government go with its growing hit list of expendable throwaways? What's to
stop the deep state from making microchips mandatory for anyone diagnosed with a mental disorder?
Or the entire world population for that matter?
The insane
DSM-5 has recently expanded the number of mental illnesses into absurdity, making sure to include
practically anyone and everyone. The Diagnostic Statistical Manual has become the official tool and
vehicle by which the government is moving to criminalize abnormality. This slippery slope may soon
include every human on the planet.
As a former diagnostic clinician, I can tell you that the criteria by which people can be diagnosed
with a
dangerous label from a vast array is extremely arbitrary and subjective. There's nothing scientific
or foolproof about it. Mislabeling citizens who may pose "trouble or a threat" to the authoritarian
state is wide open for overreaching, widespread abuse as the convenient false pretense for microchipping
and controlling a growing segment of "undesirables" within the population. Branding any individual
who does not trust authority figures with
"Oppositional Defiant Disorder" or anyone who appears "overly" health conscious and selective
about what they eat as "suffering" from
orthorexia nervosa could simply be deep state's way of branding us all with certifiable labels.
Deep state has co-opted the psychiatric profession which is largely owned and controlled by Big Pharma,
using its Diagnostic Statistical Manual's unlimited mental disorders as yet another weapon of mass
destruction playbook for diabolical population control purposes.
In recent years MSM has clearly become Washington's
ministry of propaganda . And adding insult to injury, Congress is busily passing bills designed
to outlaw the real truth, so as to empower its propaganda ministry to become its
"truth" ministry . We are living the Orwellian nightmare come true, as "
useless eating " victims of a fascist
totalitarian oligarchic police state bent on perpetrating
democide as well as
human genocide as part of its demonic
eugenics plan to drastically reduce the world pop. from 7.4 billion to anywhere from a half to
one billion depending on which
invasively surveilled and controlled population in human history by a centralized tyrannical
government controlling a centralized financial
debtor-slave system . Deep state and corporate media together engage in covert concealment of
secret, heinously deplorable brutality protecting the elite's systemic criminality perpetrated we
now know on a massive colossal scale.
A century ago the ruling elite known as the
internationalists envisioned a one world government. Now that same ruling elite controlled by
the same
tainted bloodlines are called globalists and they're rushing to suppress the truth on their way
to bringing on the perfect storm that will usher in the violent tyranny of their global governance.
Outside of technology that enables increasing power and control, little has otherwise changed over
the course of the last century. That said, never before have more citizens of the world become aware
of the treasonous and demonic crimes committed by those psychopaths in power. Before closing a final
reminder warrants stating. Regardless of the figurehead occupying the White House, the same demonic
power elite is still holding power over this earth. And the battle for truth, justice, and our very
lives will continue after January 20 th . The doomsday clock that's been ticking under
the Bush-Clinton-Obama cabal is only ticking shorter now and our struggle is hardly over.
Joachim Hagopian [ send him mail ] is a West Point graduate
and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled
"Don't Let The
Bastards Getcha Down." It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership
and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master's degree in Clinical Psychology
and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. In
recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site
is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.com
.
Washington's blog does a fine job of archiving and assembling this kind of
background, many pieces of which we all should remember, and make more sense
together.
Donald Trump has made a series of tweets about the prolonged investigations into alleged collusion with the Russian government and
obstruction of justice, which he says yielded no proof. One of the tweets refers to his firing of FBI Director James Comey. "I
am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt," Trump tweeted,
sending users and media into a guessing game of what exactly he meant.
I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt
"... American three letter agencies spend more money 'cyber spying' than the total Russian military budget. Which isn't to say the Russians don't have talent or that any amount of money will turn a paper pusher into a hacker. ..."
"... The Americans didn't respond because they thought they were miles ahead. Recent releases show they _could_ just own anyone with any connected consumer device (e.g. router, PC, Mac, Android, iOS, Linux based etc etc). ..."
Russian president Vladimir Putin (
who denies any Russian part in the hacking
) claims the Obama administration ignored a proposal
in 2015 that might have avoided all of this. His administration suggested working out a cyber treaty
with the US but was ignored by Obama officials, Putin told film director Oliver Stone in Showtime's
four-part series broadcast this week. "A year and a half ago, in fall 2015, we made proposal to our
American partners that we work through these issues and conclude a treaty on the rules of behavior
in this sphere," he said in Stone's documentary The Putin Interviews. "
American three letter agencies spend more money 'cyber spying' than the total
Russian military budget. Which isn't to say the Russians don't have talent or that any amount of
money will turn a paper pusher into a hacker.
The Americans didn't respond because they thought they were miles ahead. Recent releases show
they _could_ just own anyone with any connected consumer device (e.g. router, PC, Mac, Android,
iOS, Linux based etc etc).
I'm thinking the OpenBSD guys are acting kind of smug, but where they owned too? I can't keep
up.
Among the Republican establishment, particularly the neoconservative wing, Pence has an impeccable
reputation. Many describe him as a "
hawk's hawk ." He was a strong proponent of the Iraq War, has vigorously stood up for a strong
military and "American values" and, as vice president, has taken on an informal role as an
emissary to NATO and other alliances. All of this contrasts starkly to what candidate Trump said
on the campaign trail.
Likewise, Pence's evangelical Christian faith is central to his identity. He has proudly built
up a reputation as one of the most
conservative lawmakers in the country and frequently
describes himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." There is
a high probability that Pence would explicitly embed religious morals in U.S. foreign policy and
push an activist social conservative agenda.
For example, as the governor of Indiana, Pence signed one of the
strictest abortion provisions in the country and approved a controversial law intended to allow
businesses to
deny services to members of the LGBT community for religious reasons (only after intense blowback
did he backtrack). Translated into the foreign policy realm, it is not hard to imagine Pence defending
Christian minorities around the world, possibly to the exclusion of other religious groups.
He will undoubtedly continue Trump's expansion of the "
global gag rule ," and it is possible he may try to push a "
clash of civilizations
" strategy, primarily seeking alliances with countries that have a "Judeo-Christian" character.
But a Pence presidency could also mean re-adopting a "values agenda," with a greater emphasis
on human rights, democracy and development that would be closer in line with President George W.
Bush's policies. Under Bush, funding for development - particularly global health programs - expanded,
bringing together an unlikely coalition of secular development advocates and faith-based stakeholders.
It is not hard to envision a similar coalition coming together under Pence's watch. A Pence presidency
also may lead to a shoring-up of security and economic alliances. Just as Trump has cast the free-trade
regime into jeopardy, castigated NATO (at least before an
abrupt
about-face last month) and signaled massive funding cuts to the Bretton Woods Institutions, Pence
may reverse many of these pronouncements.
In the current configuration of the Trump administration, three separate groups tangle for foreign
policy primacy: the economic nationalists/populists led by Stephen Bannon, the
military pragmatists represented by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor
H.R. McMaster and the
economic globalists fronted by National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary
Steve Mnuchin.
Under Pence, the Bannon wing would likely make a quick and graceless exit. The economic globalists
and the military pragmatists would stay entrenched in strong positions, but old groups would likely
return, such as the neoconservatives and religious faith leaders.
A Pence presidency would bring big style changes. Gone would be the late night tweets and blustery
rhetoric. More than likely, "America First" would gradually disappear, with a return to a more traditional
form of American exceptionalism. The impulsivity, erratic swings of policy and casual disregard for
intelligence and briefing material would also likely pass.
These changes alone would considerably ease fears about an accidental stumble into a major war
or nuclear confrontation. On the other hand, the divisive culture wars that have framed Pence's political
career would presumably return in a major way and likely spill over into the foreign policy arena.
"... According to Limbaugh, Trump was elected to "drain the swamp," but has been bogged down in taking on the Justice Department's investigation of his alleged ties to Russia and how that investigation had taken on other aspects. ..."
"... Partial transcript as follows (courtesy of RushLimbaugh.com ): ..."
"... If he wants to fire these people, he can. And if he wants to endure the excrement show that happens, he can. If he wants to drain the swamp, he could keep doing it. Now, the point is that once Trump's inaugurated, already under a cloud of suspicion that it limits his ability to drain the swamp because when he begins it taints what he's doing as rather than draining the swamp he's getting rid of people who could put him in trouble. That's what Josh here is saying. ..."
"... They understood that the executive branch was gonna try to become dictator. They understood legislative branch was gonna be trying to overthrow the executive. They understood that the judges are gonna try to trample over everybody. And so they gave every branch defense mechanisms against various forms of attack in order maintain the separation of powers. And these are still in place today. ..."
"... Now, Obama was able to take over the legislative branch 'cause they ceded it to him. The Democrats ran it, and they said, "We're more than happy because we believe in centralized command-and-control, and since we love Obama, since he's God, since he's Mr. Perfection, we are happy to cede our power to him." And they did. ..."
"... Republicans have no desire to cede their power to Trump. They're holding onto it so Trump's in a battle with his own party for power, and of course the DOJ is not equally powerful as the executive branch. It is part of the executive branch. It does not have independent powers. The built-in defense mechanisms are what are being employed now. Okay, we've announced the special counsel and he's announced that the president's under investigation, and so the political reality, the political consequences of using his executive power to broom all these people out of there is designed as a deterrent. ..."
Friday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh warned President
Donald Trump of "playing the swamp's game" in governing. advertisement
According to Limbaugh, Trump was elected to "drain the swamp," but has been bogged down in
taking on the Justice Department's investigation of his alleged ties to Russia and how that investigation
had taken on other aspects.
Limbaugh argued although he was playing "the swamp's game," he had other tools at his disposal
that he has yet to use.
He could fire Rosenstein, and he could fire Mueller. There's nothing stopping him from doing
it, nothing legally. He could go to Rosenstein right now. He would be perfectly within his bounds
to go to Rosenstein and say, "Look, this investigation can't be wide open for anything. You've
gotta limit what these people can look for. You've gotta limit it to actual felonious crimes.
You can't have them subpoenaing anybody they want financial records, text records, tax records.
There has to be a limit."
He would be perfectly within his bounds to do that because he is the executive branch. And
if he wanted to fire these people, he could. When you see in the media, "There's no way he can
do it," they're talking politically. But since the independent counsel, special counsel's been
named, and now since they made sure to leak that Trump is under investigation, that is supposed
to tie his hands, but it cannot tie his hands legally.
If he wants to fire these people, he can. And if he wants to endure the excrement show that
happens, he can. If he wants to drain the swamp, he could keep doing it. Now, the point is that
once Trump's inaugurated, already under a cloud of suspicion that it limits his ability to drain
the swamp because when he begins it taints what he's doing as rather than draining the swamp he's
getting rid of people who could put him in trouble. That's what Josh here is saying.
And all that is true. But it need not stop him. What is being relied on, therefore, is conventional
inside-the-Beltway thinking. Look, the Constitution has devised, for every branch of the government
- the Founding Fathers were smart people, folks. They anticipated that there would be a never-ending
quest to consolidate power. They understood human beings.
They understood that the executive branch was gonna try to become dictator. They understood
legislative branch was gonna be trying to overthrow the executive. They understood that the judges
are gonna try to trample over everybody. And so they gave every branch defense mechanisms against
various forms of attack in order maintain the separation of powers. And these are still in place
today.
These various mechanisms that the branches can constitutionally use to rein in, say, an overzealous
executive. Or that a president can use to rein in overzealous members of the executive branch.
The executive branch cannot run anything legislatively and vice-versa. Now, Obama was able to
take over the legislative branch 'cause they ceded it to him. The Democrats ran it, and they said,
"We're more than happy because we believe in centralized command-and-control, and since we love
Obama, since he's God, since he's Mr. Perfection, we are happy to cede our power to him." And
they did.
Republicans have no desire to cede their power to Trump. They're holding onto it so Trump's
in a battle with his own party for power, and of course the DOJ is not equally powerful as the
executive branch. It is part of the executive branch. It does not have independent powers. The
built-in defense mechanisms are what are being employed now. Okay, we've announced the special
counsel and he's announced that the president's under investigation, and so the political reality,
the political consequences of using his executive power to broom all these people out of there
is designed as a deterrent.
But he could still do it. It's not constitutional or legal prohibitions stopping him. It's
pure politics. And it's the politics of the swamp, folks. The swamp has got Trump playing the
swamp's game right now. And that's not what Trump was elected to do, and that's not what Trump
wants. Trump does not want to play the swamp's game. I think the effort to get health care passed
in the House was Trump playing the swamp game. And by swamp game, I mean the traditional way to
get legislation passed.
Somebody in the House comes up with a bill working with the White House and you got people
that are for it and against it. You bring the detractors up to the White House, you wine and dine
'em, you cajole 'em, you beat 'em on the head. You do whatever, you try to get the bill passed,
exactly the way it's always been done in the swamp. That first health care bill that ended up
not being voted on because it never had a chance, I never thought it was gonna have a chance because
it was "all swamp all the time."
Now, you might say, "Well, I mean, Rush, the swamp's the swamp. There's no other way to get
a bill passed. The president's not a dictator." I understand that. But Trump has many more tools
at his disposal than he is aware of. I shouldn't say that. He's got more tools at his disposal
than he is using. The power vested in the president by the Constitution in the executive branch
is awesome.
Now, there are limits to it. Separation of powers. But he hasn't gotten close to utilizing
it. It's just politics that is the obstacle to getting rid of Mueller since Mueller has now leaked
that Trump is under investigation. You've heard the media say if he gets rid of him now that takes
us right back to Nixon. It takes us back to Nixon only because the media loved getting rid of
Nixon. Nobody has any evidence Trump did anything yet. There isn't a shred of evidence even now,
folks. If you read the Washington Post story on the latest examples of the independent counsel
looking into financial - there's no evidence of anything. It's a wild good chase.
Trump would not be throwing out any evidence if he fired these people and shut down this investigation.
If Trump thought the investigation was needlessly harming the country and derailing us at a time
we needed to be focused on real dangers and enemies, he could do it. There would be hell to pay
in the media, don't misunderstand. I mean, it would dwarf what's happening. But he could do it,
is the point. Now, he won't probably choose to do it because of the political ramifications of
it.
But the idea that he's been hamstrung since the beginning because he was inaugurated under
investigation, and at that time we didn't even know what it was. It was just the FBI looking into
Russia and collusion. Some of us have known that that was bogus from the get-go. Some of us have
known that it was purely manufactured, invented by the Hillary campaign 24 hours after she lost.
Some of us have never believed a single word of it and would have been happy if Trump acted that
way as well.
But he didn't. Why? He's new. He wants to calm their fears. He wants to show them that the
things they thought about him were not true, that the reasons they hated him were not grounded
in any reality. He wanted to show them that he could work with them, be a good guy, we could all
come together. I'm sure that's what he wanted to do. And of course they want no part of that 'cause
they don't want any part of Donald Trump succeeding in anything, anytime, anywhere.
The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood" by
the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst
at BAR.
Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't want
to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people in the
U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist economy
of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once belonged
to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course. War is all
the system has left."
"... The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood" by the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst at BAR. Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't want to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people in the U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist economy of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once belonged to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course. War is all the system has left." ..."
"... "If you are resisting Russian collusion with Trump, then what you are resisting is a fantasy," BAR executive editor Glen Ford told the opening plenary of the Left Forum. "And, if you are simply resisting Trump, the idiot in the White House, then you are simply a tool of a Democratic Party strategy." ..."
"Dumping the Democrats for good is the only way to resist Trump," said Black Agenda Report editor
and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley , addressing BAR's panel at the Left Forum, in New York City.
"What have they done since Election Day?" Kimberley asked. "They have refused to give even the appearance
that they are willing to push for even meager reforms. We have to talk about replacing them and having
a true workers party, a true peace party."
Political Elite Use Russia-Baiting to "Medicate" U.S. "Crisis of Governance"
The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood"
by the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst
at BAR. Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't
want to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people
in the U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist
economy of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once
belonged to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course.
War is all the system has left."
A Real Left Would Demand Peace
"If you are resisting Russian collusion with Trump, then what you are resisting is a fantasy,"
BAR executive editor Glen Ford told the opening plenary of the Left Forum. "And, if you are simply
resisting Trump, the idiot in the White House, then you are simply a tool of a Democratic Party strategy."
Ford said the nation needs a rejuvenated anti-war movement, "or else we are defenseless against
this kind of strategy on the part of the Democrats, who pretend that they are an alternative to the
fascist-sounding and definitely virulently white nationalist forces in the Republican Party, but
are themselves intent upon a war policy that can mean the extinction of the human race."
But ... economically you say you are self-sufficient ... they're gone, let them have their
problems. It's not going to destoy your country.
Putin :
Not in the least.
Stone :
... and at one point you told me in our last meeting that ... I asked you, you know, what about
the Russian [base at Sevastopol] ... you told me that it [Russia] wasn't threatened by the loss
of the base ...
Putin :
It was a threat, losing this base, but it was not too sensitive. Right now we are commissioning
a new military base not far from here in Novorossiysk.
Stone :
Even if nato made an agreement with Ukraine, I still don't see the threat to Russia ... with
the new weaponry.
Putin :
I see a threat.
The threat consists in the fact that once nato comes to this or that country, the political
leadership of that country as a whole, along with its population, cannot influence the positions
nato takes, including the decisions related to stationing the military infrastructure. Even very
sensitive weapons can be deployed. I'm also talking about anti-ballistic missile systems.
Right now a certain strengthening of American influence is being witnessed in Europe, partly
due to Eastern European countries, because they are trying to resist the former dominating power
of the Soviet Union. Right now it's mirrored in Russia, but sooner or later this is going to stop.
Through initiating the crisis in the Ukraine, they've [the Americans] managed to stimulate such
an attitude towards Russia, viewing Russia as an enemy, a possible potential aggressor.
But very soon everyone is going to understand, that there is no threat whatsoever emanating
from Russia, either to the Baltic countries, or to Eastern Europe or to Western Europe. And the
stronger this misunderstanding is, the greater the desire is going to be to protect their [European]
sovereignty and to fend for their national interests.
So this constant feeling of being under pressure, let me assure you, is something no one is
happy about. Sooner or later it's going to have consequences if it's going to stop. And it's better
if this happens through dialogue. Certainly you can try to use North Korea or some other countries
to paint a darker picture, but i think what's needed right now is the transition to a new paradigm,
a new philosophy for building relations among countries.
And this paradigm should be based on respect for the interest of othe countries, for the sovereignty
of other peoples, not just trying to intimidate them using some outer threat which can only be
resisted with the help of the United States. This paradigm will have to cease to exist sooner
or later.
from the outside putin can clearly see the threat to european sovereignty from nato - the fact thereof,
actually ... and he can see the threat to the united states from the european backlash to the european
nations' loss of severeignty to the us under nato, once that's perceived, and the same through the
eu - and the rump is being very helpful there. the us is sleepwalking right into its own demise,
brought about by its own arrogant stupidity ... its arrogance 'will have to cease to exist sooner
or later'. and it's looking to be sooner rather than later.
from the outside putin can clearly see the threat to european sovereignty from nato - the fact
thereof, actually ... and he can see the threat to the united states from the european backlash
to the european nations' loss of severeignty to the us under nato, once that's perceived, and
the same through the eu - and the rump is being very helpful there. the us is sleepwalking right
into its own demise, brought about by its own arrogant stupidity ... its arrogance 'will have
to cease to exist sooner or later'. and it's looking to be sooner rather than later.
"... In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism."
All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism." ..."
"... American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's $1.1
trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both. ..."
Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption that President Trump has launched
an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic order that Washington has established. This liberal world
order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.
Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit myth.
For example, the orchastrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy, and human rights conviently
overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow of the
first elected Iranian government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial
bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon;
support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil,
Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities
through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary rendition,' torture, and
the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the US Constitution]."
In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism."
All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."
President Trump is in trouble, Bacevich says, because "he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony."
American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's
$1.1 trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both.
There is the feeling among the globalist elite that Trump is a fly in their ointment, and they're not going to let him spoil their
party
( National Sentinel ) Globalism: We already know that President
Donald J. Trump's message of "America first" has rattled the world's globalist elite, as past American leaders have allowed them
to feed off our success and drain jobs, opportunities and treasure from our country while they distribute that wealth
to other countries, so they can control them. Globalism today really is nothing less that colonialism from past centuries,
only writ large and done with dollars, not military divisions.
In any event, Trump's nose-thumbing of the G7 leaders' agenda and his [reported] plan to pull out of the Paris Climate Accords
may be a bridge too far for the world's elite, many of whom are meeting in Chantilly, Va., this week – an event
to which
Trump did send representation .
As reported by The Guardian , the secretive Bilderberg annual gathering of the world's governing and industrial elite "will
include a 'progress report' on the Trump administration," and no one is sure if he'll get a passing grade.
So, perhaps, Plan B is taking shape.
As reported "exclusively"
by InfoWars (yes, we know, but read on anyway), that plan may consist of "overthrowing" Trump in an extreme, last-use tactic
to thwart his agenda, if talking to him and convincing him to abandon it (which he can't do because he'll lose reelection) doesn't
work:
Sources close to the elitist Bilderberg Group conference tell Infowars that globalists see their agenda as being in "deep trouble"
and that Donald Trump poses a "dangerous" risk to the international order and must be brought to heel or turfed out of office.
Over the years, Infowars has developed sources close to the conference who feed us information ahead of time as to the real
agenda behind the confab, not just the vague list of topics
released officially by Bilderberg.
Given that this is the first year since both Brexit and Trump came to pass, the effort to derail both is very much the primary
focus of discussion amongst globalists in attendance this week.
One Bilderberger told the site that since Trump is "dangerously obsessed" with upsetting and derailing the current world order,
it may just be that there is no other way for the globalist cabal to protect its interests than deposing, or helping to depose, a
U.S. president who, for the first time in decades, isn't dancing to the same sheet of music.
More:
Globalists are baffled as to Trump's "erratic" style of governance and are panicked that he could undo decades of work they
put in to build the new world order.
However, Bilderbergers still think Trump can be brought to his senses and taught "how the world really works," a line that
is typical of the arrogance that has come to epitomize the attitude of Bilderberg members over the years.
Given the highly unlikely scenario of Trump taking orders from Bilderberg, the only recourse left for the elite will be to
turf him out of office.
Another Bilderberger is confident that Trump can be impeached, but only if Democrats regain control of Congress in 2018, in
which case his days are "numbered".
If the impeachment of Trump is in process by the end of 2018, globalists are confident that any effort on behalf of his administration
to pull out of the Paris climate agreement and any other globalist treaties will be thwarted.
As of this writing Trump has yet to formally announce he will withdraw the U.S. from the Paris accords (or declare it a treaty
and send it to the Senate, where it won't be ratified). But clearly there is the feeling among the globalist elite that Trump is
a fly in their ointment, and they're not going to let him spoil their party.
Rod Rosenstein - Wikipedia "President
Donald Trump nominated
Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice on
January 13, 2017. Rosenstein was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 25, 2017"
On May 17, 2017, Rosenstein (who had been put in charge of the Russia probe as soon as he was
confirmed, because Attorney General
Jeff Sessions
recused himself after it was reported that he had failed to disclose his contacts with the
Russian ambassador when asked about those during his Senate confirmation hearing[38])
appointed Robert
Mueller as a
special
counsel to conduct the investigation into "any links and/or
coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of
President Donald Trump" as well as any matters arising directly from that investigation.[39]
Rosenstein's order authorizes Mueller to bring criminal charges in the event that he discovers any
federal crimes.[39]
Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein sees no reason at this point to recuse himself from
overseeing the special counsel's investigations involving President Trump and the 2016
presidential election, the Justice Department said Friday.
WASHINGTON -
U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has privately acknowledged he may need to recuse himself
from matters relating to the probe into Russia and last year's U.S. election, given that he could
become a potential witness in the investigation, ABC News reported on Friday, citing unnamed sources.
ABC said Rosenstein, the No. 2 official at the Department of Justice, told Associate Attorney
General Rachel Brand she would have authority over the probe if he were to step aside. Rosenstein
appointed special counsel Robert Mueller last month to investigate alleged Russian meddling in the
presidential election and possible collusion by President Donald Trump's campaign, and has told lawmakers
he would fire him only with good cause.
He is the department's lead official on the issue after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused
himself from any issues linked to the Russia probe. Rosenstein was also the author of a memo recommending
the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, which the White House cited along with a memo from Sessions
as the reason Trump fired Comey on May 9.
Trump, a Republican, later said that he had the Russia matter in mind when he fired Comey. The
Democratic National Committee said on Friday it saw a need for Rosenstein to recuse himself, but
it said control over the investigation should be given to Mueller and not another Trump appointee.
ABC's report comes as Trump said on Friday he is personally under investigation in the widening
Russia probe over Comey's firing. According to ABC, Rosenstein made the comments about his possible
recusal at a recent meeting with Brand but has yet to formally ask career attorneys at the department
for their opinion on the issue.
At a Senate hearing earlier this week, Rosenstein declined to answer whether he would have a conflict
of interest if he became a witness in the investigation but pledged to "do the right thing."
"The truth is, you elected a man who never quits. He never backs down. He's a fighter.
He's a winner," Pence said, according to an audio recording obtained by Politico Magazine . "And
I'll make you a promise: No matter what Washington, D.C., might be focused on at any given moment,
President Donald Trump will never stop fighting for the American people and for advancing an agenda
that will make America great again!"
His audience roared. For those who feared the GOP's once-in-a-generation opportunity for a policy
renaissance was being squandered by infighting and incompetence and the creeping scent of scandal,
the vice president's words, as they so often have during the early days of the Trump administration,
provided temporary relief. The performance was vintage Pence. He was grandiose but grounded, hailing
a host of early victories but cautioning that the biggest were yet to come; he was authoritative
but deferential, speaking for the party and the government while carrying greetings from his boss.
Above all, Pence was upbeat, befitting the "happy warrior" persona he has long labored to promote.
"It's hard to get through all these accomplishments-unless you're watching cable news," he said,
chuckling. "They never come up, except on one network!" Had Pence not nodded twice to the Beltway
media's preoccupations, one would have had no inkling that Trump was enduring the most perilous stretch
of his young presidency-or that Pence appeared at risk of becoming collateral damage.
The night before, on the eve of Trump's first foreign trip-and Pence's private speech-two news
outlets published a pair of eyebrow-raising stories that reflected mounting anxiety within the vice
president's inner circle. The sourcing and strategy seemed clearly choreographed. First, both articles
aimed to distance Pence from the chaos engulfing Trump's White House; CNN
quoted "a senior administration adviser" who said Pence "looks tired" and never expected such
mayhem on the job, while NBC
cited "a source close to the administration" who complained of a "pattern" of Pence being kept
in the dark on matters relating to the scandal-plagued former national security adviser, Mike Flynn.
Second, both stories were authored by former Pence "embeds," reporters who had spent months traveling
with him and are expertly sourced among the vice president's tight-knit team. And third, the news
accounts cast Pence in a sympathetic light at the very moment when the D.C. media was, for the first
time, beginning to hammer him. The New York Times
had reported the day earlier that Flynn informed the Pence-run transition team before Inauguration
Day that he was under federal investigation; the implications for Pence were staggering, and the
White House categorically denied the story. But Pence had also courted trouble the week earlier by
insisting that Trump's decision to fire Comey was based on the deputy attorney general's recommendation-a
claim Trump promptly contradicted in an interview with NBC's Lester Holt, embarrassing the vice president
and sending an awkward question echoing around Washington: Is Pence being kept out of the loop, or
is he being deceitful?
"... Lots of people out there (Hello lurkers!) know that the Pork Pie News Networks are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying by omission so actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not – but are faced with having to wade through rivers of f/ktard commenters. It is dispiriting to say the least. ..."
"... That may well be the idea, particularly those organizations that want to hose a and discredit alternative media sites (sic the JTRIG program and the likes of Brigade 77 and digilogues that have been running for years). If you can hack it, you probably think a) does this make sense? b) who is bono? c) timing, timing, timing.. d) is anything logically missing from the picture/story? e) if so, what conclusions can we draw from that? etc. It's not easy. ..."
"... Once upon a time we had newspaper columnists to do our thinking for us who we would religiously read. Now it is each one for themselves. What a pain in the ass. Fortunately we have the Kremlin Stooge and a bunch of other sites to help! :-) ..."
"... Don't miss the link to TTG's comment on leaks at Sic Semper Tyrannis! ..."
"... Yet again, you do not get this kind of information from the Pork Pie News Networks, the same ones who cosy up to the security services in return for juicy tidbits and also rubbish 'alternative news/websites/blogs'. ..."
"... the notion of compartmentalized operational security and broad state electronic surveillance of the population are mutually exclusive. ..."
He's one of a handful of good commenters there among the nutbags, antisemites, conspiracy theorists
etc. It's one of the things that really bugs me about great (supposedly) alternative news/opinion/blogs.
They always get immediately contaminated by all sorts of narcissistic 'tards who just want to
s/t the bed for everyone else, particularly the flyby trolls. Lots of people out there (Hello
lurkers!) know that the Pork Pie News Networks are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying
by omission so actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not
– but are faced with having to wade through rivers of f/ktard commenters. It is dispiriting to
say the least.
That may well be the idea, particularly those organizations that want to hose a and discredit
alternative media sites (sic the JTRIG program and the likes of Brigade 77 and digilogues that
have been running for years). If you can hack it, you probably think a) does this make sense?
b) who is bono? c) timing, timing, timing.. d) is anything logically missing from the picture/story?
e) if so, what conclusions can we draw from that? etc. It's not easy.
Once upon a time we had newspaper columnists to do our thinking for us who we would religiously
read. Now it is each one for themselves. What a pain in the ass. Fortunately we have the Kremlin
Stooge and a bunch of other sites to help! :-)
My only thoughts are, wouldn't such info be compartmentalized (standard operating procedure,
innit?), i.e. a 'translator' would not have free and unlimited access, but rather have
access to only very specific highly secret info? If there are that many translators out there,
then compartmentalization would work very well. It is totally counter intuitive, nay stupid
, to allow free range to anyone but the top of the top. More people, more chance of leaks,
accidents or incomptence.
Don't miss the link to TTG's comment on leaks at Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Yet again, you do not get this kind of information from the Pork Pie News Networks, the
same ones who cosy up to the security services in return for juicy tidbits and also rubbish 'alternative
news/websites/blogs'.
Indeed it is; Secret and Top secret information is made available to those who
(1) are cleared
to the appropriate level, and
(2) have the need to know.
It's "and". Not "or". Top Secret information may not be viewed by anyone with a Top Secret
security clearance – only by those who need to know that information to carry out their duties
related to it.
Information may actually specify, "Top Secret – Eyes Only" in which the personnel holding a
Top Secret clearance who may view the material are either listed, or it is restricted only to
the addressee.
I dunno, because that whole Snowden thing revealed a lot of holes in the American security apparatus.
Snowden himself was surprised just how much stuff he was able to access, and he was just a contractor
at the time, not even a permanent employee.
Well, yes, because the notion of compartmentalized operational security and broad state electronic
surveillance of the population are mutually exclusive.
But to the very best of my knowledge Snowden did not reveal any secrets of America's defense
systems, its operational structure, its past military operations or its future plans in that area,
if he knew them. The damaging information he disclosed all related to American spying on foreign
leaders and the American electorate
Last week, when former FBI Director James Comey gave his long-awaited public testimony about his
apparently rough-and-tumble relationship with President Donald Trump, he painted a bleak picture.
The essence of Comey's testimony was that the president asked him to drop an investigation of retired
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn - Trump's former national security adviser - and then asked him to do so in
return for keeping his job as FBI director and then fired him for not obeying his order.
On the other hand, Comey confirmed that the president personally, as of the time of Comey's firing,
was not the target of any FBI criminal investigation. It was not clear from the Comey testimony whether
this exoneration was referring to salacious allegations made by a former British intelligence agent
of highly inappropriate and fiercely denied personal behavior a few years ago in a Moscow hotel room
or whether the exoneration was with respect to widely reported allegations that the 2016 Trump campaign
may have helped Russian intelligence agents in their efforts to manipulate the outcome of the presidential
election.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt the president is now a target of a federal investigation with
respect to his dealings with the then-FBI director. So, how could the tables have turned so quickly
on the president, and who turned them? Here is the back story.
Prior to the Watergate era of the mid-1970s, the generally accepted theory of management of the
executive branch of government was known as the unitary executive. This theory informs that the president
is the chief executive officer of the federal government and is the sole head of the executive branch.
He is also the only person in the executive branch who is accountable to the voters, as he, and he
alone (along with the vice president, who is largely a figurehead), has been elected by the voters.
As such, this unitary executive theory informs, everyone in the executive branch of the federal
government works at the pleasure of the president. Were this not the case, then vast areas of governance
could occur and vast governmental resources could be spent by people who are unaccountable to the
voters. And when the government is unaccountable to the voters, it lacks their consent. The consent
of the governed is the linchpin and bedrock of popular government in America.
There are, of course, today vast areas of government that are not responsive to the people and
that lack the consent of the governed. The administrative agencies that write, interpret and enforce
their own regulations and the deep state - the secret parts of the financial, intelligence and law
enforcement entities of the government that never change, operate below the radar screen and have
budgets that never see the light of day - defy the notion that the consent of the governed is the
sole legitimate basis for government in America.
Yet the FBI is not in the administrative state or the deep state. It is front and center as the
premier law enforcement agency of the United States government. It is far from perfect, and its leaders
are as fallible as the rest of us, but we have hired the folks who work there to enforce the federal
laws that implicate our freedoms and our safety. And we have hired the president to exercise his
discretion as to which laws shall be enforced and against whom.
Thus, under this theory, the president is constitutionally, legally, morally and ethically free
to direct any person in the executive branch as to how he wants that person to perform his or her
job. And the recipient of such direction is free to resign if the direction appears unlawful. That
is at least the theory of the unitary executive.
After the Watergate era, Congress altered the public policy of the country to reflect the independence
of the Department of Justice, including the FBI. It did so in reaction to Nixonian abuses. Thus,
the post-Watergate theory of the DOJ's role articulates that federal law enforcement is independent
from the president.
The Comey testimony revealed serious efforts to reject the public policy of independence and return
to the unitary executive. Comey revealed a DOJ under former Attorney General Loretta Lynch in lockstep
with the Obama White House and determined to exonerate Hillary Clinton in the espionage investigation
concerning her emails, no matter the evidence. He also revealed his own view that President Trump's
orders and quid pro quo offer with respect to Flynn were unlawful.
Where does this leave us today?
Today we have a White House under siege. The new DOJ criminal investigation that the president
is no doubt the subject of will attempt to discover whether he corruptly attempted to interfere with
the work of an independent FBI and whether he attempted to bribe its then-director. The White House
is also the subject of five congressional investigations involving the Russians and the 2016 election,
the firing of Director Comey, and the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from much of this.
And the investigation of Clinton is back from the grave for a third time to determine whether she
was exonerated because of a lack of evidence, a lack of will or an Obama political imperative.
These are perilous times for men and women of goodwill and intellectual honesty who are charged
with enforcing our laws and running the government. The government should not be terrifying. But
it must be fair and transparent. And it must always enjoy the consent of the governed. For without
that consent, it is illegitimate.
Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.
Feb 1, 2017 Secrets Of The FBI Finally Revealed and Leaked
In this video, we go over the latest FBI leak of thousands of documents to the intercept that
revealed their secret rule book and operations. We go over what was found in those documents and
the dangers of these powers that the FBI has.
So when exactly did any of us, or our representatives, vote on the income tax? Because I certainly
don't remember consenting to it.
Or twelve years of public schooling.
Or the TSA.
Or the entire history of Civil Wrongs laws.
Hyperventilating about the actions of one set of corrupt public officials vs. another is a
bit far down the list of non consent issues any of us should be concerned about.
"After the Watergate era, Congress altered the public policy of the country to reflect the
independence of the Department of Justice, including the FBI The Comey testimony revealed serious
efforts to reject the public policy of independence and return to the unitary executive."
The above quotes imply that these two policies are just "theories" of executive authority,
and not really enshrined in hard law. However, the article is never clear on whether or not that
is the case. If these are just two competing theories, and no law or clear court precedent exists,
then what is the legal basis for any investigation/lawsuit? Inquiring minds want to know .
WSJ - Del Quentin Wilber, Shane Harris and Paul Sonne - June
14, 2017
WASHINGTON-President Donald Trump's firing of former FBI
Director James Comey is now a subject of the federal probe
being headed by special counsel Robert Mueller, which has
expanded to include whether the president obstructed justice,
a person familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Mueller is examining whether the president fired Mr.
Comey as part of a broader effort to alter the direction of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's probe into Russia's
alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election and
whether associates of Mr. Trump colluded with Moscow, the
person said.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Mr. Trump's personal lawyer,
Marc Kasowitz, denounced the revelation in a statement. "The FBI leak of information regarding the president is
outrageous, inexcusable and illegal," Mr. Corallo said.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mr. Mueller, declined to
comment. The special counsel's pursuit of an obstruction of
justice probe was first reported Wednesday by the Washington
Post.
Mr. Mueller's team is planning to interview Director of
National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency
Director Mike Rogers as part of its examination of whether
Mr. Trump sought to obstruct justice, the person said.
The special counsel also plans to interview Rick Ledgett,
who recently retired as the deputy director of the NSA, the
person added.
While Mr. Ledgett was still in office, he wrote a memo
documenting a phone call that Mr. Rogers had with Mr. Trump,
according to people familiar with the matter. During the
call, the president questioned the veracity of the
intelligence community's judgment that Russia had interfered
with the election and tried to persuade Mr. Rogers to say
there was no evidence of collusion between his campaign and
Russian officials, they said. Russia has denied any government effort to meddle in the
U.S. election. Mr. Ledgett declined to comment, and officials
at the NSA didn't respond to a request for comment. An aide
to Mr. Coats declined to comment.
Mr. Coats and Mr. Rogers told a Senate panel June 7 that
they didn't feel pressured by Mr. Trump to intervene with Mr.
Comey or push back against allegations of possible collusion
between Mr. Trump's campaign and Russia. But the top national
security officials declined to say what, if anything, Mr.
Trump requested they do in relation to the Russia probe.
"If the special prosecutor called upon me to meet with him
to ask his questions, I said I would be willing to do that,"
Mr. Coats said June 7. Mr. Rogers said he would also be
willing to meet with the special counsel's team.
Mr. Comey told a Senate panel on June 8 that Mr. Trump
expressed "hope" in a one-on-one Oval Office meeting that the
FBI would drop its investigation into former national
security adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned under pressure
for making false statements about his conversations with a
Russian diplomat. Mr. Trump has denied making that request.
Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr.
Mueller to decide whether the president's actions amounted to
obstruction of justice. The former FBI director also said he
had furnished the special counsel with memos he wrote
documenting his interactions with the president on the
matter.
At a June 13 hearing at a House of Representatives panel,
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein declined to say who
asked him to write a memo justifying Mr. Comey's firing. The
White House initially cited that memo as the reason for the
termination, and Mr. Trump later said in an NBC interview
that he also was influenced by the Russia investigation. Mr.
Rosenstein said he wasn't at liberty to discuss the matter.
"The reason for that is that if it is within the scope of
Director Mueller's investigation, and I've been a prosecutor
for 27 years, we don't want people talking publicly about the
subjects of ongoing investigations," Mr. Rosenstein said.
"Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr.
Mueller to decide whether the president's actions amounted to
obstruction of justice."
Comey probably lied. This was probably the plan hatched
from the very beginning of this color revolution by Comey and
other members of anti-trump conspiracy such as Brennan: to
raise Russiagate or anything else to the level which allow to
appoint special prosecutor and to sink Trump using this
mechanism, because digging by itself produces the necessary
result.
Obstruction of justice is the easiest path to remove
Trump, a no-brainer so to speak, the charge which can be used
to remove any any past and future US president with
guaranteed result.
The other, more Trump-specific, is of financial deals
within the Trump empire. Especially his son-in-law deals.
In this sense Trump is now hostage like Clinton previously
was. He can fight for survival, by unleashing some war, like
Clinton did with Yugoslavia.
Which probably is OK for neocons because war for them is
the first, the second and the third solution to any problem.
But as a result the US standing in the globe probably will
be further damaged.
BTW, in your zeal to republish this neocon propaganda, do
you understand that Hillary was a head of one of those 17
intelligence agencies in the past?
The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)
has ties to the Office of Strategic Services from World War
II, but was transferred to State after the war. INR now
reports directly to the Secretary of State, harnessing
intelligence from all sources and offering independent
analysis of global events and real-time insight.
Headquarters : Washington, D.C.
Mission : This agency serves as the Secretary of State's
primary advisor on intelligence matters, and gives support to
other policymakers, ambassadors, and embassy staff.
Budget : $49 million in 2007, according to documents
obtained by FAS.
This all drama makes no sense for me. Trump folded. He
proved to be not a fighter. The attempt to bring members of
his family close to White house is a huge liability for him
now in view of possible digging of the past of his son in law
by the special Prosecutor. Who is recruiting the most rabid
Hillary hacks for the job ;-).
But the key question is what DemoRats will gain with the
current vice president elevated to the new level?
Other then a blowback from the remaining part of Trump
supporters. Pat Buchanan was talking about civil war
recently, which is probably exaggeration, but the probably
direction of reaction is probably right:
You are a typical retired "frustrated underachiever". Nothing
new here and your replies fits the pattern perfectly well.
You probably should not comment things that you have no
formal training. I do believe that you are unable to define
such terms as "neocon", "Bolshevism", "Trotskyism" and
"jingoism" without looking into the dictionary. Judging from
your comments this is above your IQ.
Of cause, such twerps as you are always lucking in
Internet forums, so you are just accepted here as the
necessary evil. But you do no belong here. No way. Neither in
economic or political discussions.
You can add nothing to the discussion. Actually your
political position is the position of a typical neocons and
as such is as close to betrayal of American Republic as one
can get. If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon
overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and
all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion
debt their lies and wars have created. Because interests of neocons are not interests of the 300
million of US population. That's why people elected Trump
with all his warts.
It is sleazy idiots like you who get us into the current
mess. And please tell your daughters that you betrayed them
as well -- you endanger them and their children, if they have
any. Of course for retired idiots like you nuclear holocaust
does not matter. But it does matter for other people. Is it
so difficult to understand?
Agree, add JohnH and you see a disinformation team. One goal
is to undermine the credibility of this blog, so skipping
over their entries is what I recommend, unless you want to
learn fifth column techniques. Quess that is interesting, but
it is trolldpm!
The choir of losers continues to sing: 'Putin and Trump
colluded' ...just like the right wing sang that Bill Clinton
was guilty of all sorts of heinous crimes. And what did they
finally get on Bill? Monica.
They're just lone cranks. If you think they're a
disinformation team, you're paranoid. There are a lot of
crazy people out there. If you don't understand that fact you
need to get out more.
EMichael and PGL love to scold the
cranks as much as possible b/c it makes their establishment
line sound reasonable. I agree with you. I just ignore them.
At least they're keeping busy instead of harassing people
offline.
BTW, now I think Trump is probably going down. He floats idea
of firing Mueller. Mueller tells press they're investigating
Trump. Meanwhile the Republicans are passing Trumpcare. Trump
is moving to replace Yellen. So Mueller will have this list
of things Trump and his campaign did. Will Republicans vote
to remove Trump? Will it depend upon how the public reacts?
Perhaps they are just attempting to hasten the descent of the
Democratic Party establishment consensus towards its
inevitable rock bottom, the condition at which all addicts
must finally arrive before they are forced to admit that they
are the authors of their own failure and the only ones
capable of their own rescue.
"... As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt." ..."
"... Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded. ..."
"... Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth defending? ..."
"... since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of the leakers. ..."
"... Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person. ..."
"... It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible. ..."
"... His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs is not warranted. ..."
"... "Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance. ..."
"... I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that. ..."
"... So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him. ..."
"... His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e. end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal. ..."
"... Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary. Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty. ..."
"... The people of the Swamp are hostage to the Devil. ..."
President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration
is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.
We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the
sovereign and its own restoration.
Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces
are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart.
A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.
That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret.
Few deny it.
Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under
oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president.
Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president.
Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation,
that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking
of the DNC.
Comey's deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president.
And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey's friend
and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.
As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that
look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have
been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt."
Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia
after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State
Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for
sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives
at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected,
collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.
"It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week
of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal
policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.
Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government,
and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks
are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.
The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real
criminal "collusion" in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy
a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.
Yet another example is the unfolding "unmasking" scandal.
While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump
associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.
On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump
associates unmasked. Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies
of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack
Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president. The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn's
conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia
for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on
Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.
... ... ...
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Comey wanted Mueller in there, and Mueller is doing what he will, because Mueller is there
primarily to PROTECT Obama and Clinton and their vast left wing cabal, just like Comey did before
he was canned.
Mucking up Trump's life and those of Trump's people in the process is merely a sweet bonus.
Not to mention the excellent distraction/diversion value that provides.
Trump needs to go after the deep state and quit attempting to mollify it with actions such
as support of Saudi terrorists. It is a fight to the finish and if the power structure wins, our
days are numbered.
Most people in this country don't know what is going on and wouldn't care if they did. Trump
and this country are experiencing democracy's waning time in action. And it ain't pretty.
Trump is surrounded by judases. His own hand-picked people are not loyal to him, including
his vice-president. Trump hasn't shown any cojones that every one expected from him. One little
crisis and he has surrendered himself to the neocons. Session is a weak man. He couldn't even
stand up to his old buddies who showed no respect to a fellow senator.
We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of
the sovereign and its own restoration.
We already have a civil war. It may be bloodless but it is a civil war which it appears Trump
is destined to lose unless he shows some courage and brains to turn the scale against the insurgents.
He should start by firing Rosenstein (sp) and Mueller and dare the congress to impeach him.
He should take his case to the voters that had elected him and urge them to call on congress,
especially, the Republicans to support him. He should go back to his pre-election agenda and start
pulling the US out of the Middle East and make friendly overtures towards Russia. He also needs
to rein in the intelligence commmunity and tell them to get off the Iran case and do some real
intelligence work. Stop supporting all insurgents in the Middle East no matter what their affiliation.
From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive order
allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request it.
I can't believe he hasn't done this.
Finally, I thought by now he should have learned that he cannot govern through the Tweeter.
He needs to get off of that binge and get serious. So far he does not have any coherent domestic
or foreign policy. Bowing down to Israel and Saudi Arabia and do their bidding does not make a
foreign policy. One is threatening him while the other is bribing him, neither is a true friend
to the US. Except for the supreme court justice position, Trump has nothing to show for his domestic
achievements. Republicans need to act as the majority party. They cannot let the Democrats run
the congressional business.
Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It
was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to
destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth
defending?
Moreover Donald Trump is hellbent on using the Native Born White Working Class Teeanage Male
Population as canon fodder Greater Israel in the Middle East. Trump is a vile, evil creature who
will rot in hell for an eternity for doing this .
" will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace."
As if they're going to stop there. Those breaches of WH security a while back were the Deep
State's warning shot, and you see how quickly Trump about-faced in the ME.
From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive
order allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request
it. I can't believe he hasn't done this.
I agree, but I believe he's kept the EO in place since it's easier to find the leakers this
way. But since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly
or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of
the leakers.
Trump better cancel the EO if and when the find all the leakers and if he doesn't he'll unmask
himself as a fraud who's smitten by absolute government power. Defense of civil liberties has
never been his strong suit.
Kill Deep State by shutting off funding. Unclassify the whole intelligence budget. Then shut
it down. Move the civilian intelligence functions to the military. Return FBI to a domestic agency
covering federal crimes, not working closely with CIA or accompanying U.S. military in raids in
Afghanistan and Middle East.
Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up
and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and
mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting
zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for
a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person.
I think the nation could come unglued, but I don't see the military joining in, at least not
on the side of nationalists against the government. The average American soldier seems to be a
PC brainwashed, globalist stooge, and the officer class appears to be made up of weak-minded careerists
and yes men, little different from the soldiers, so I don't see much help coming from them. Add
that to the fact that the government is trying to pass laws giving amnesty to illegals who will
join a U.S. military that already has many soldiers of foreign birth or roots, and I don't see
much help coming from the military, which seems to become more distant from the population as
time goes by.
It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and
hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible.
He should have confronted those in his party that are out to destroy him Why did he waste his
time interviewing loser like Romney? Was he serious about their possible usefulness? Trump doesn't
seem to know that he is under assault. He needs to start some serious ass kicking.
His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing
to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence
is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs
is not warranted.
"Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance.
@MEexpert If you think he has "nothing to show for his domestic achievements" and that he
"does not have any coherent domestic or foreign policy" it suggests to me that you're either a
Democratic troll, not paying attention, or just plain ignorant.
One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion
over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth
over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be recognized
as his signature achievement.
You can easily find the myriad of other domestic and foreign policy achievements if you really
want. But its clear you really don't want.
I find it amusing that you would side with the enemy in recommending he stop tweeting. How
many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the Presidency,
BECAUSE he couldn't stop tweeting. They ALL were just as wrong as you are now.
And of course your guessing or assuming when you really don't know war is hell so they say,
and we are masters at starting them killing little children, what was the count in Iraq 100,000
500,000 thousand and the masters said it was worth it the problem with the American people including
you is its alright as long as it happens in some other country but cry a river at the thoughts
it could happen here, now who's the idiot?
How many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the
Presidency,
I don't know, because I never said it. LOL. I voted for Trump. So much for your insight into
my motives.
One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion
over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth
over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be
recognized as his signature achievement.
All this is in the future and unknown. $100 trillions sounds great but who came up with this
outrageous number. I am talking about now. If he ends the war, the payoff will be immediate with
savings in material cost and lives.
I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't
think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest
US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that.
So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary
to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him.
His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch
investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e.
end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave
up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal.
Trump created a vacuum by failing to keep his promises, and his enemies are now using it as
a snipers nest.
@Travis That's the essence of it. We can't and won't have a civil war because a civil war
requires at least two sides to fight it, and both political parties, all of the institutions,
government apparatus, mass media, corporations, and the ruling tribe are on the same side.
Opposing this is (or was) maybe half the population on a very good day, but what we're seeing
is that even half of the population is pretty much powerless in the face of the Empire's juggernaut.
In my view, the Republicans deserve our special ire because they were in a position to help
bring about real change, with this singular opportunity, and they wanted no part of it. Fortunately,
their party is toast and we'll enjoy a cataclysm before anyone takes their place. The Democrats?
We knew what to expect from them, and still do. They are wrecking this nation systematically.
Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even
a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary.
Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty.
@MEexpert " neither is a true friend to the US" You imply that the evil empire can actually
be a true friend to others which would be laughable, right? If not, how do you expect others
to be just that??
The narrative blaming Russia for the Qatar split does not have any evidence to substantiate it,
and Sen. Warren went out of her way to ensure none might be revealed today. It is worth pointing
out, however, that President Trump personally took credit for the split himself when it first happened,
crediting it to his visit to Saudi Arabia just days prior.
Rather, it originates from Qatari state media having quoted the Qatari Emir saying something the
Saudis didn't like, and subsequently attributing the quote to "hackers." US media outlets saw the
word hackers, and naturally assumed Russia, and it appears that as with everything, this has quickly
become something everyone is willing to assume is the case.
Mattis went on in the course of his testimony to insist he's seen "no indication" that Russian
President Vladimir Putin wanted to have a positive relationship with the United States, apparently
taking no note of the several times when Putin literally said that around the 2016 election, and
was openly courting diplomatic normalization with the US. Rather, Mattis insists Putin has "
chosen to be competitive ."
The Senate is said to be moving forward on a new round of sanctions against Russia, and some legislation
to prevent the Trump Administration from easing the sanctions in any way. There appears to be little
interest in gathering actual evidence against Russia to justify this move, and rather seem confident
that they can just keep everyone assuming allegations in the media are true.
"... In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges. He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on. ..."
"... In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day. ..."
"... Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told, says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady but has to tow- the-line. tom • 6 days ago ..."
"... "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be". ..."
"... CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!... ..."
"... She's a media whore...nothing more, nothing less.... ..."
"... Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the west. ..."
An open letter to NBC News about Megyn Kelly's manipulative and shameful interview with Vladimir
Putin Thu, Jun 8, 2017
| 7080
90
Dear NBC News Team,
Congratulations! You have graduated from fake news to falsified news, arriving at a journalistic
level that is identical to that in the Soviet Union in its heyday.
A couple of days ago, the political talk show moderated by Vladimir Soloviev on state television
channel Rossiya 1 broadcast two versions of a segment from Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir
Putin last Friday in the St Petersburg on the sidelines of the International Economic Forum. One
was the complete, uncut version that was aired on RT. The other was the cut-to-shreds version that
you put on air for the American audience. (
Watch here, beginning 4 minutes
into the program .)
The segment was Megyn Kelly's aggressive question to Putin, asking his response to what she said
was Americans' understanding of his government, namely one that murders journalists, suppresses political
opposition, is rife with corruption, etc., etc. In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut
to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed
by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations
point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to
question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges.
He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas
to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on.
In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact
a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion
in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day.
Who wins from these games? You are only preconditioning the American public for the war that is
coming, whether by intention or by accident. And there will be no one left to have the last laugh
after the first day of that war. So you can forget about your stock options and retirement schemes,
ladies and gentlemen of the News Team.
have a nice day
Gilbert Doctorow
Brussels
Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book
Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. His forthcoming book Does the United States
Have a Future? will be published on 1 September 2017.
The thing that everyone in the American media wants to ignore is this: If any President of
any nation knew that one of the candidates in the national election of his biggest rival intended
to start a nuclear war with his country as soon as they were elected, do you think he might be
tempted to do anything possible to avoid the war? hillary clinton intended to go to nuclear war
with Russia and everybody knew it. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin be tempted to try to keep her out of
office. He says he didn't do so, and because I trust him (something I'm not so stupid as to do
with hillary!!!), I choose to believe him. However, I wouldn't blame him if he had pulled out
all the stops to keep her out of office, and can only thank him or any other "patriotic Russian"
who saved America from a fate worse than death--namely having a fourth-degree black magic witch
as President!!! And that's in addition to saving the lives of millions of people on both sides
of the oceans.
You mentioned in the article that RT ran an uncut version of Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir
Putin. I tried going to the link you provided, but the show was in Russian without subtitles.
Is there a version of the full interview offered anywhere with subtitles or voice-over for those
of us in the US who would like to see it? I'd like to know what else Mr. Putin said.
see more
Try you tube and enter "putin megyn kelly" and you'll find dozens of clips ... and as to why
Putin never intervened may become clear if you take notice of the following .... already in the
beginning of 2016 the Russians must have discovered that plans existed to murder Trump ... I read
a leaked message that the Russians were ready for war should that occur ... and apparently sent
a secret message ... long before the election they had already figured out that Trump was going
to win the election because they knew of Hillary's true intentions also ... they had no need to
intervene because there are and were forces opposed to her then existing plans to ignite war ...
and there must be much more to that, because Putin sent an escort to Antarctica before Kyrill
even went there .... and later met the Pope in Mexico ... Kyrill went on to declare a Holy War
against Terror a year ago ... a long time before the election took place .... and Kerry slipped
off on election day to visit Antarctica himself ... and fell out of bed and bumped his head doing
so ... see more
rosewood11
Peter Paul 1950 •
5 days ago I agree with Astrid (below) in thanking you for the youtube hint. You mentioned
the Antarctic. I notice all the globalists seem to be making that a "destination," but I've never
seen Putin go himself (good!!!). Anybody know what the fascination is--Is Steve Quayle right?
see more
One can't really be sure who is right and if any kind of exaggeration plays a large part of
all the tales that have become more public thanks to the internet ...
... it's shrouded in mystery that almost anything seems to make some kind of sense ... I first
heard of the Nazi connection with the discovery and founding of Newschwabenland and Project High
Jump with Admiral Byrd in a private conversation decades in my younger years, but only through
the internet was it possible to find out more ... everyone seem so make it a great mystery that
there is something there nobody dares to make official ... even Vault 7 appears to add to all
the whisperings by adding a collection of photos without comment ... much room for speculation
... but it does seem to be of some importance ... see
more
Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told,
says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady
but has to tow- the-line. tom
•
6 days ago
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what
never was and never will be".
Putin should sue NBC for falsifying his interview. And, Putin should never agree again to an
interview by one of the US MSM. Vasya
Pypkin •
6 days ago Faked or falsified news. Could the author provide an example of similar news falsification
by Soviet Union media. After many years I find that Soviet media actually was telling truth but
smart assses among our population tended to believe lies by Western voices. Many who are still
alive regret.
Otherwise good article. The western media is nothing but lies cloaka. Soviet media also was
not entertaining enough mostly talking about industries, crops, health and other substantial and
important things while life was stable and predictable.
Now Russian population is being constantly entertained, but there is little to report on industrial
front and there is no confidence in future. Ruble is up and down and crude same. Was it worth
to fjkuck up great country to have more entertainment and some artifial sausages varieties while
losing what is the most important for human beings. Sorry for a rant.
AMHants •
6 days ago Surprise surprise, George Eliason - Op Ed News, was right, all along:
CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could
be blamed on Russia!...
But we all expected this .... It is only that by law, Russia should be able to sue any newscast
for editing and thus misrepresenting in particular -- the Russian president's words and thoughts,
because of occupying the highest office in Russia. As Gilbert said, the gravity of what it could
portend for Americans, is mounting daily...
Rossiya 1 would perhaps be more cautious second time around ... make it a condition that what
the president or any official of the Russian Federation said on tape, should be broadcast in full
and no editing -- or face have their pants sued off . What a shameless and gutless excuse for
a journalist this Kelly is!
The West has never been a democracy! During the Cold War the so called "democracy" was just
a voting facade to hide the fact that the West is OLIGARCHY. What choice do American citizens
have in their elections? TWO (that is 2!) parties which both run basically the same imperialist,
neocolonialist, hegemonic policy. And economic policy is also the same - neoliberal meaning privatization,
outsourcing, policies that favor the rich and harm the poor... Only bloody revolutions can change
things. You cannot change the system with voting pencils! Pencils have never changed anything
anywhere. Robert Keith •
6 days ago Megyn Kelly is, granted, a step above your run-of-the-mil, blond, airhead, TV talking
head. I don't know whether President Putin suffered from the juxtaposition, what with her typical-for-TV
mundane questions, but, probably not, because it allowed him to give down-to-earth answers to
the questions that most Americans seem to be asking themselves, inane though they be. He is very
skilled at this, because he makes himself available to his countryman in the same way on a regular
basis it seems.
If one searched elsewhere for the full video, which was available (on this blog), he came across
very well, I must say. We will spare the readership any comment on the relative merits of his
performance in comparison to what we night have heard from our Chief Executive.
Well, yes it's infuriating, but it was also so very predictable. When I complained about this
wretched woman and her boring, predicted and repetitive questions leaving unasked anything to
do with the forum leaders speeches and the masses of trade discussion that had happened during
the meeting, I was told by many "that this is how Putin can show the West the truth".
No - he can't, because we know they manipulate, cut, change, and frame it to make it look any
way they want. Only those who need no convincing got to see the whole truth - and most of us know
it already.
The only thing to do is ignore America, treat it like the meaningless 3 rd World country it
is rapidly sinking into - and get intelligent moderators from elsewhere.
see more
"... the meaningless 3 rd World country it is rapidly sinking into ..."
*Exactly* the conclusion at which the known French demographer and historian Emmanuel Todd
arrived in his 2001 book "Aprčs L'Empire: essai sur la décomposition du systčme américain" ("After
the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order"). His scientific analysis was based primarily
on purely demographic data, in addition to other factors:
https://www.amazon.com/Afte... . An interesting reading.
Interesting. I had not heard of this man - so thank you for the link Peter. He seems to be
thinking along the same lines as Dmitry Orlov, but coming from an Academic and Historian view
point. Orlov just saw much of the Russian collapse - he has family in Russia, it is his native
language, and he lived there during part of the 1990's if I understand him correctly. He drew
a parallel between USSR and America - coming to the same conclusion as this Msr. Todd.
We are all wondering, of course "when". ?
It's like knowing the very obese man next door who already has heart and BP problems coupled
with Diabetes, but takes no exercise and eats fast food like a hungry pig, is going to have a
massive physical break down and die.
It's just that there 's no way of predicting exactly when.
Nofearorfavor
Isabella Jones •
5 days ago I remember when Putin agreed to be interviewed by Charlie Rose in Sep 2015, condition
was that CBS produced the full 60 minutes uncut, which then ran into over 60 minutes. However
found this interesting article on State of the Nation about the interview ... El Maestro wiping
the floor with Rose and not doing anything to help along his flagging ratings ....now this Kelly
tried to do the same and she fell flat on her face... no journalistic integrity at all ...
My recommendation for anyone who is being interviewed for American TV is to find out how long
the TV segment is and only allow the total interview time to be 1.5 times that amount to only
allow reasonable editing, not the standard butchery. So in this case, a 15 minute interview would
be sourced by 25 minutes, not the two hours that Putin must have given Kelly since he spent a
day with her.
In all fairness, they had to butcher the question on Russian democracy, journalist killings,
etc because Kelly chose to spend 95% of the air time on moronic questions about 'election meddling'
as if that deserved more than one question and the expected denial. What the heck did Kelly expect
Putin to day about election meddling, yet she kept going back to it.
see more
Unlike
in America, in the Soviet Union the people knew that there was no truth in the Pravda nor news
in the Izvestya. Nowadays there are more Bolsheviks in New York than in St. Petersburg.
see more
nbc are msnbc the same degenerate-infested propaganda US/ BS.
Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the
west.
Of course the lying bums, the democrats hate it that their 'Miss Piggy' Clinton was beaten,
they will keep on their crap for years, nbc and many other so-called news outlets are democrat-lapping
rats who spew-out the lies, hate and shit everyday, those slime at cnn are the same pork as is
the US poodle Canada's cbc. see more
Where Megyn failed, NBC succeeds in editorializing Putin as the village idiot. How long before
these horse-driven dimwits drown in the cesspools they dig for others? I don't see any way out
of this but war. It's not the fictitious 'deep state' Russia should be concerned with, but Trump
himself. Playing the Elder.
"... Some news now trickling into the blogosphere that the Democratic National Convention paid Crowdstrike – that's the cyber-security firm headed by Dmitri Alperovich with links to the Chalupa sisters and the Ukrainian diaspora in North America – to hack into its own server. ..."
Some news now trickling into the blogosphere that the Democratic National Convention paid
Crowdstrike – that's the cyber-security firm headed by Dmitri Alperovich with links to the Chalupa
sisters and the Ukrainian diaspora in North America – to hack into its own server.
"In the US, talk of a Donald Trump-Russian government collusion against Hillary Clinton gets
more attention than some other possibilities. Cyber-security developer John McAfee said: "If it
looks like the Russians did it, I can guarantee you it was not the Russians." There's a wave of
anti-Russian sentiment, as evidenced by the lack of US mass media and body politic condemnation
to former National Security Agency (NSA) Director James Clapper's bigoted anti-Russian comment.
The subject of anti-Russian propaganda brings to mind the pro-Kiev regime leaning Atlantic
Council and its cyber-security member CrowdStrike. Entities like them are silent in instances
like when Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko falsely stated that Jews in Crimea are prohibited
from observing their faith, since that area's reunification with Russia."
James Clapper, former Director of the CIA who lied directly to Congress about whether it was spying
on American citizens has very recently said to the Australian Press Club that "I think you compare
the two, that Watergate pales, really, in my view, compared to what we're confronting now." and
"Is there a smoking gun with all the smoke? I don't know the answer to that. I think it's vital,
though, we find that out.".
As has become textbook with modern press roll-overs, they are trying to substitute momentum for
evidence, and achieve critical mass without having to cite any real facts you could hang your
hat on later. Everyone involved will shake their heads as if coming out of a dream, and say, "Well,
we all thought "
There are several problems with Krugman both as an economist and as a political commentator.
First he does not understand that neoliberal system is inherency unstable and prone to periodic
bubbles and crashes.
FED plays destabilizing role by attempting to save large banks. It essentially provided insurance
for reckless behaviour. This is very "Minsky" -- "stability is destabilizing".
If we believe Jim Rogers, FED policies created a situation in which the next crash is a real
possibility and might happen within a year, or two:
Politically Krugman switched to neocon views and sometimes is undistinguishable from Wolfowitz
: " And consider his refusal to endorse the central principle of NATO, the obligation to come
to our allies' defense... What was that about? Nobody knows..."
NATO became obsolete with the dissolution of the USSR and now serves only as an instrument
of the US foreign policy -- a tool for expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire and keeping
our European vassals in check.
He also got into Russiagate trap, which is a sign of weak intellect (dementia in cases of Hillary
and McCain), or of a neocon political hack. As Krugman does not have dementia, I suspect the latter.
The standards he tries to apply to Trump would put in jail all three previous presidents starting
from "change we can believe in" bait and switch artist.
In other words his column is highly partisan and as such represents interest only for Hillary
Bots and DemoRats (which are still plentiful and control MSM).
For people who try to find a real way out of the current difficult situation (a crisis of confidence
and, possibly, the start of revolt against neoliberal elite due to side effects of globalization)
the USA now have find itself, this is just a noise. Nothing constructive.
Trump position "get what you want with the brute force; f*ck diplomacy, UN and decency" is
actually an attempt to find a solution for the problems we face. Abhorrent as it is. Kind of highway
robbery policy.
The key problem is whether we should start dismantling neoliberalism before it is too late,
and what should be the alternative. Krugman is useless in attempts to answer those two key questions.
And it is unclear whether it is possible by peaceful means. Those neolib/neocon guys like Bolsheviks
in the past want to cling to power at all costs.
Another question is whether the maintenance of global neoliberal empire led by the USA is now
too costly for US taxpayers and need to be reconsidered. This is the same question British empire
faced in the past. Do we really need 500 or so foreign bases? Do we really need to spend half
a trillion dollars annually on military? Do we need all those never ending wars as in Orwellian
"war is the health of the state" quote (actually this quote is not from 1984, this is the subtitle
of the essay by Randolph Bourne (1918))
What is the real risk of WWIII with such policies? Because there is a chance that nor only
the modern civilization, but all higher forms of life of Earth in general seize to exists after
it.
Concentrating of Trump "deficiencies" Krugman does not understand that Trump is just a Republican
Obama -- another "clean plate" offering to the US electorate, another "bait and switch" artist.
With just different fake slogan "Make America great again" instead of "Change we can believe
in".
And as such any critique of Trump is an implicit critique of Obama presidency, which enabled
Trump election.
Teleprompter personally was a dangerous and unqualified political hack, not that different
from Trump (no foreign policy experience whatsoever; almost zero understanding of economics),
who outsourced foreign policy to the despicable neocon warmonger Clinton and got us into Libya,
Ukraine and Syria wars in addition to existing war in Afghanistan.
Continuing occupation of Afghanistan (which incorrectly called war) and illegal actions in
Syria (there was no UN resolution justifying the USA presence in Syria) are now becoming too costly.
Afghan people definitely want the USA out and will fight for their freedom. Taliban has supporters
in Pakistan and possibly in other Islamic countries.
In Syria the USA now clashed with Russian interests which make it a real power keg. And to
this sociopaths in CIA like Mike "Kill-Russians" Morell and the fact that CIA is not under complete
control of federal government and actually represent "state within the state" force in this conflict,
and the situation looks really dangerous.
And please note that Russia protects a secular government, and the USA supports Islamic fundamentalists
in Syria, to make Israel even greater. Instead of "Making America great again". Such a betrayal
of elections promises... The same policy that Hillary would adopt if she sits on the throne.
So to say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous
idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the
same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide
for them what is good for America.
The US army is pretty much demoralized and even with advanced weapons and absolute air superiority
can't achieve much because solders understand that they are just cannon fodder and it is unclear
what they fighting for in Afghanistan.
Because in Syria the USA support the same Islamic fundamentalists it is fighting in Afghanistan.
Or even worse then those -- head choppers like guys from Al Nusra.
So we fight secular government in Syria supporting Sunni fundamentalists (often of worst kind
as KSA supported Wahhabi fighters) and simultaneously are trying to protect secular government
in Afghanistan against exactly the same (or even slightly more moderate) Islamic fundamentalist
forces. Is not this a definition of split personality?
"In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more wars,
wars we will lose.
Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool
enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.
The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel
our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon
pretends its future is war against other states.
The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They
waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."
At one point Stone watches Dr. Strangelove with Putin
After watching the movie with Stone, Putin reflects on its enduring
message. "The thing is that since that time little has changed," Putin says.
"The only difference is that the modern weapon systems have become more
sophisticated, more complex. But this idea of retaliatory weapons, and the
inability to control such weapon systems still hold true to this day. It has
become even more difficult, more dangerous."
Stone then gives Putin the movie's DVD case, which Putin carries into an
adjoining office before realizing that it is empty. He reemerges, holding
the empty case with the quip, "Typical American gift."
The media is a privatized neoliberal corporate parasite. It has
only one function extracting money from the host. It is amoral and
pragmatically political. It will say anything to make money.
We accidentally caught Stephen Colbert interviewing Oliver Stone last
evening on a Late Show – I was disgusted by Colbert's treatment of Stone
– also disgusting was the audience (obviously coached and organised to
jeer and boo). No doubt Colbert was under orders from his corporate
bosses – though maybe that's being too kind to him. Controlling the minds
of the masses!
Just watched that and it was awful, but also very clarifying.
Colbert's selling out just like Maddow did – she was actually pretty
good on Air America a decade ago when she had a show with Daily Show
creatrix Liz Winstead.
Colbert and the audience just assume demonization of Putin is
justified while being oblivious to the log (or forest might be more
apt) in Uncle Sugar's eye. Wonder how they would describe him if
Russian domestic security forces routinely gunned down hundreds or
thousands of Russian citizens every year. Some might consider that a
sign of a very oppressive government .
Frustrating to watch people fall for this villain du jour schtick
every single time.
I haven't paid attention to Colbert since 2013, when he played a
role in the attempt to resuscitate Kissinger's public image (he
later allowed Kissinger onto his show for a friendly interview).
Oddly I can't seem to find the full video itself, but here's an ABC
report on it:
I saw a preview of this on twitter recently. There is the analogous
"President" of a country, driving himself, a body guard, and Oliver Stone
down the highway. It was such a typical scene, no black limos, no cargo
helicopters, no long walks and slow camera pans, just some dudes in traffic.
I was wondering if Seinfeld was in the back.
"National Democrats hoping to parlay the latest furor surrounding the Russia investigations
into political victory in the Midwest may want to take a different tack" [
NBC ]. "The party has targeted Iowa's 1st Congressional District, currently represented by
Republican Rod Blum, as a battleground in the 2018 house race. But in the days leading up to former
FBI Director James Comey's blockbuster testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, residents
made it clear that while news of the scandal billowing around President Donald Trump's White House
was impossible to avoid, it was far from their biggest concern. Most constituents interviewed
by NBC News said that they need to see fire before they come to any conclusions about the Russia
investigation and added that they are beginning to tune out news connected to it because of fatigue.
Voters here are more concerned about issues like health care, veterans' benefits, Planned Parenthood
and infrastructure."
UPDATE "Virginia governor says Russia was helped by 'treasonous' Americans who gave 'these
people a roadmap'" [
The Week ]. Making it all the more remarkable that some kind soul in the intelligence community
hasn't risked their career to expose the traitors by coming forward with evidence (Reality Winner
seems to be a kind soul, and she did risk her career,
but the evidence part ) We really do need more than the word of a
corrupt Clintonite - sorry for the redundancy -
blowhard on this.
Our Famously Free Press
"And then there's the dirty little secret that every journalist knows - Trump stories drive
ratings and clicks. The word 'Trump' in a headline vastly increases its chances of getting attention.
(We're all guilty; see above.)" [Margeret Sullivan,
WaPo ]. After shredding the notion of "balance," Sullivan considers what the press should
do. For example:
Do news sites give serious, sustained attention to policy issues as well as publishing innumerable
hot takes about the personality-driven dust-up of the moment?
Harvard professor Thomas E. Patterson, the study's author, sees trouble on that last point.
"The press is focusing on personality, not substance," he said recently on public radio's
"On the Media" program. And that reflects "not a partisan bias but a journalistic bias," the
tendency to seek out conflict. (No mystery there - it's more interesting.)
Trump stories are cheap to produce, because they generally don't require reporting. Or editing,
apparently:
"... The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown. This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted it uncritically for the short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle. ..."
"... This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool. ..."
"... In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot. Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally. ..."
"... He is lying about this and more because he needs a cover to avoid going after Clinton. Comey is a pathetic creature desperate to cover for someone who could have owed him a huuuuuge favor or that he could blackmail. ..."
"... He just simply lacked the political and theatrical acumen to pull it off and was undone by the court jester – Gowdey. The shame of it all – to be annihilated by a fool and sacked by a mobsters tool. ..."
"... I don't think he's lying. It's worse in that he believes the Russian hacking as presented to him by his subordinates and peers as true. Similar to Colin Powell believing in WMD evidence as found and presented to him. These "rational/reasonable/respected" people by their lack of critical skepticism cause more problems than the obvious and self aware snake oil salesmen. ..."
"... Comey's testimony actually amounted to saying Trump was correct all those weeks he was insisting the FBI wasn't investigating him when he fired Comey. But the media is just barreling on ahead as if Trump hasn't been vindicated. ..."
Reality Winner throw away her career and life for nothing--as that NSA memo wasn't a smoking
gun and added nothing new (and further evidence that the intelligence community would label a
Wikipedia article as "Top Secret")
And Reality had awful/naive "operational security." Anyone who read a few John LeCarre/Tom
Clancy novels would've done better at avoiding detection.
What? Monica has not had an easy time of it. Yes, her choice, but still.
I don't see how you come by comparing what Monica Lewinsky did (which in no way compromised
state secrets) with what Reality Winner did (I don't think she compromised state secrets, but
she published what I thought was called a "Top Secret" document).
Two entirely different things. What's the connection? That they both have lady parts?
Her father was a fairly large bundler of donations for the democratic party and her step dad
was former head of voice of america she did not grow up in a family with any real financial stress
and there has been no suggestion anywhere she has had to wait tables one does not get internships
at the wh without some pull
What does that have to do with what Reality Winner did? The initiating email in this thread
discusses Reality Winner and the issue about her release of a top secret document.
Somehow that devolves into some weird slut shaming of Monica Lewinsky? WTF?
Again: why are we even discussing Monica Lewinsky in a thread that is about Reality Winner?
The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that
the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single
source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian
hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown.
This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted
it uncritically for the short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle.
This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect.
OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians
not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites
the material taken from the servers a Russian tool.
In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have
been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of
a Russian plot. Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated,
turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen
documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on
Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally.
He is lying about this and more because he needs a cover to avoid going after Clinton.
Comey is a pathetic creature desperate to cover for someone who could have owed him a huuuuuge
favor or that he could blackmail.
He just simply lacked the political and theatrical acumen to pull it off and was undone
by the court jester – Gowdey. The shame of it all – to be annihilated by a fool and sacked by
a mobsters tool.
I don't think he's lying. It's worse in that he believes the Russian hacking as presented
to him by his subordinates and peers as true. Similar to Colin Powell believing in WMD evidence
as found and presented to him. These "rational/reasonable/respected" people by their lack of critical
skepticism cause more problems than the obvious and self aware snake oil salesmen.
"especially the explosive testimony of former FBI director James Comey"
I find this downright amazing. Comey's testimony actually amounted to saying Trump was
correct all those weeks he was insisting the FBI wasn't investigating him when he fired Comey.
But the media is just barreling on ahead as if Trump hasn't been vindicated.
"... Defective political judgment, the [Brookings] authors recognize, also afflicts elites: 'If anything, wealthier and better-educated voters are often more, rather than less, subject to partisanship, systematic bias, rationalization, and overconfidence in inaccurate beliefs,' they write. ..."
"Opinion: 5 alternative plutocrats to run America better than Trump" [
MarketWatch
].
Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Diane Hendricks. Well .
"The 9th Circuit's travel ban ruling declares the president's Twitter
feed is a legally binding stream of consciousness" [
Slate
].
But what if it's self-contradictory, as bullshit often is?
"In recent months, leading Democrats from national chairman Tom Perez on
down have been unleashing f-bombs, s-bombs and everything in between as they
try to rally their party to 'resist.' And New York's junior senator seems to
be leading the charge" [
New
York Post
]. This descent to the vernacular kinda, sorta worked in
2003-2006 for "foul-mouthed bloggers of the left," as David Broder called
them; profanity was a proof of authenticity, of boldness. I doubt that will
work for Democrats today.
"Trump voters are more informed about the elites than are the elites
about them. Trump voters see the elites on network and cable news and
late-night talk shows. They encounter them in the dominant print media. And
they take in the elite sensibility through feature films, and television
sitcoms and dramas. In contrast, members of the so-called knowledge class
seldom acquire more than a passing acquaintance with those in "flyover
country," their dismissive term for the approximately 2,600 of 3,100
counties-or 84 percent of the geographic United States- where Donald Trump
bested Hillary Clinton. Knowledge of how the other half lives and thinks is
one glaring hole of elite education" [
RealClearPolitics
].
"
Defective political judgment, the [Brookings] authors recognize,
also afflicts elites: 'If anything, wealthier and better-educated voters are
often more, rather than less, subject to partisanship, systematic bias,
rationalization, and overconfidence in inaccurate beliefs,' they write.
The Brookings fellows nevertheless insist that career politicians, party
officials, policy experts, and lawyers bring knowledge of institutional
arrangements, complex trade-offs, and technical detail that are essential to
good government." The report: "More professionalism, less populism: How
voting makes us stupid, and what to do about it" (PDF) [
Brookings
Institute
].
UPDATE "Welcome to the era of the 'bot' as political boogeyman" [Philip
Bump,
WaPo
]. "These stories, though, including the Daily News's, tend to be
embraced for the same reason that Superman's monsters were so chilling: The
threat is novel and not well understood. There's another level here, too.
Assuming that vocal Trump supporters on social media are not real people
reinforces an important political effect as well."
"... "They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it." ..."
"... As I noted in a Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds. ..."
"... "Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. ..."
"... "Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. " ..."
"... The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked into Democratic Party emails. ..."
"... In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper – the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies. ..."
"... There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike. ..."
"... The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council senior fellow and the co-founder of Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? ..."
To prove their chops, mainstream media stars can't wait to
go head-to-head with a demonized foreign leader, like Vladimir Putin, and let him have it, even if
their "facts" are wrong, as Megyn Kelly showed
NBC's Megyn Kelly wielded one of Official Washington's most beloved groupthinks to smack Russian
President Vladimir Putin over his denials that he and his government were responsible for hacking
Democratic emails and interfering with the U.S. presidential election.
In her June 2 interview with Putin, Kelly noted that all "17 intelligence agencies" of the US
government concurred in their conclusion of Russian guilt and how could Putin suggest that they all
are "lying." It's an argument that has been used to silence skeptics for months and apparently is
so useful that no one seems to care that it isn't true.
For instance, on May 8, in testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper conceded publicly that the number of intelligence agencies involved
in the assessment was three, not 17, and that the analysts assigned to the project from CIA, FBI
and NSA had been "handpicked."
On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan
confirmed Clapper's account about the three agencies involved. "It wasn't a full interagency community
assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies," Brennan acknowledged.
But
those public admissions haven't stopped Democrats and the mainstream media from continuing to
repeat the false claim. In
comments on May 31, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton repeated the canard, with a
flourish, saying: "Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator
and Secretary of State, is hard to get."
A couple of days later, Kelly revived the myth of the consensus among the 17 intelligence agencies
in her interview with the Russian president. But Putin passed up the opportunity to correct her,
replying instead:
"They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have
talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed
me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably
better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he
and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it."
As I noted in a
Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge
that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president
has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic
emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has
been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds.
"At President Obama's Jan. 18 press conference, he admitted as much: 'the conclusions of the intelligence
community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting
or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked .'" [Emphasis
added]
Explaining the Technology
More importantly, Putin in his interview with Kelly points out that "today's technology" enables
hacking to be "masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin" of the
hack. "And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will
think that they are the exact source of that attack. Modern technology is very sophisticated and
subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid of all the illusions.
"
Later, when Kelly came back to the issue of hacking, Putin expanded on the difficulty in tracing
the source of cyber attacks.
"Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario?
In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to
put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia.
Can't you imagine it happening? I can.
"Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination
was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule
it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities
available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while
making a reference to Russia in the process. "
Kelly: "Let's move on."
However carefully Megyn Kelly and her NBC colleagues peruse The New York Times, they might well
not know WikiLeaks' disclosure on March 31 of original CIA documents showing that the agency had
created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did
it by leaving telltale signs (like Cyrillic markings, for example).
The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the
"Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required
the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts
to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money
and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians
hacked into Democratic Party emails.
In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually
one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper
– the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan
acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies.
There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable
discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist
on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own
proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike.
The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think
tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council
senior fellow and the
co-founder of Crowdstrike.
Strange Oversight
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment
battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to
insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy
to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed
on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?
Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee
Chair Richard Burr:
BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever
have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide
you the data that they had collected?"
COMEY: "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have
access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class
entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access."
BURR: "But no content?"
COMEY: "Correct."
BURR: "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"
COMEY: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the
time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand
the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps,
NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might
have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who
very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."
Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high
esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an
oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman
on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total
of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS). Reprinted with permission from Consortium
News .
"... The wall-to-wall Russia 'scandals' being flogged by the Herbal Tea Party are providing cover
a distraction that diverts the attention of the diminishing rump that is the Democratic Party base from
demanding a no-holds-barred examination of why so few US citizens vote for its candidates any more.
..."
"... Is this revenge? She's so genuinely enraged at Trump for beating her fair-and-square that she's
determined to hang around and cause as much trouble for him as she can? ..."
"... Is this truly nothing more than a case of her being so ego-crazed she just can't willingly
step out of the spotlight? ..."
"... Are there plans afoot to usher Chelsea in as the next generation of the Clinton Political dynasty
to keep the money machine going? ..."
"... Or – God help us – is she actually contemplating yet another run at the White House come 2020?
I would have thought the notion insane but I'm beginning to wonder. She's no spring chicken, but, y'know,
Trump's an old man, Bernie is an old man, that rotten sack of shit Reagan was an old man and senile
to boot. I turn my thoughts to Washington, and there's no shortage of vicious old geezers who refuse
to toddle off to their ill-earned retirement. Look at John McCain, fer Chrissakes. ..."
The wall-to-wall Russia 'scandals' being flogged by the Herbal Tea Party are providing
cover a distraction that diverts the attention of the diminishing rump that is
the Democratic Party base from demanding a no-holds-barred examination of why so few US citizens
vote for its candidates any more.
I wonder if it has ever occurred to the Democrat party brain trust that once the great Russian/Trump
treason snipe-hunt comes up empty that there will be a whole lot of dejected resistance members
out there who will finally realize either that they have been fed a load of crap or, if they truly
believe the mythology, that the party leadership was too cowardly to get to the truth. Either
way, good luck getting those folks all revved up for 2018.
What is Hillary's endgame here, anyway? I had little use for Al Gore back
in 2000, but dang if his slinking offstage obediently and meekly and (above all) quietly doesn't
look downright dignified compared to HRC's refusal to willfully do the same. And I'm beginning
to get the feeling there's more to this than just her ego at work. The possibilities as I see
'em (feel free to add to the list if you wish):
a.) Is this revenge? She's so genuinely enraged at Trump for beating her fair-and-square
that she's determined to hang around and cause as much trouble for him as she can?
b.) Is this truly nothing more than a case of her being so ego-crazed she just can't willingly
step out of the spotlight?
c.) Are there plans afoot to usher Chelsea in as the next generation of the Clinton Political
dynasty to keep the money machine going?
d.) Or – God help us – is she actually contemplating yet another run at the White House
come 2020? I would have thought the notion insane but I'm beginning to wonder. She's no spring
chicken, but, y'know, Trump's an old man, Bernie is an old man, that rotten sack of shit Reagan
was an old man and senile to boot. I turn my thoughts to Washington, and there's no shortage of
vicious old geezers who refuse to toddle off to their ill-earned retirement. Look at John McCain,
fer Chrissakes.
Hillary doesn't do anything unless she stands to gain something, so I assume she has her reasons
for not riding off into the sunset. What are they?
I think she has to continue raising her profile and remain in public view. Otherwise her grifting
machine grinds to a complete halt. All the people who depend on the Clintons are so numerous,
(Podestas, Teneo, all those consultants) that they form their own ecosystem.
It's hilarious listening to NPR's wall-to-wall coverage of today's protests
in Moscow
and then remember that NPR maintained radio silence on Occupy Wall Street for
10 days.
(The protests began on Sept. 17, 2011. The first mention I can find
on the All Things Considered archive was
Sept. 27
.)
"... But the use of disinformation has been expanded in what I now see as an attempt to destabilize the U.S. government itself, to achieve "regime change" at home as it has been practiced in many foreign countries over the last 70 years. ..."
"... There are many sound and urgent reasons to oppose many of Mr. Trump's policies – and I do. But a constitutionally elected sitting president should not be removed from office by an orchestrated campaign of disinformation and lies. Nor should "ideologically inspired disinformation" dominate our public discourse on critical issues – in any case, but especially when the result is a heightened risk of nuclear war. ..."
"... I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia. This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective, form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting. ..."
"... "What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley ..."
"... Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971 and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007). ..."
I've been feeling pretty overwhelmed by it all lately, capped (most recently) by the third U.S.
attack on Syria. As I put that together with President Trump's giving the military free rein over
"tactics," it sank in that, with this delegation of authority, war-making power has now devolved
from the Congress through the President to the military itself, in areas where not only Syrians but
Russians, Iranians and others operate.
In the apparent absence of an organized peace movement, the concentration of so many people on
opposing Trump, rather than on opposing U.S. wars, distracts attention from this problem. Otherwise
under fire from all directions, Mr. Trump gets approval – across the spectrum – when he does something
awful but military, like launching cruise missiles at Syria or dropping that horrific bomb in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile his attempt to reset U.S. relations and reduce tension with Russia is being used to lay
the groundwork for impeachment and/or charges of treason.
The lies about Syria have of course continued. First, Amnesty International issued "
Human Slaughterhouse:
Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison Syria ," claiming that the Syrian government
executed between 5,000 and 00 s13,000 people over a five-year period. Then another chemical weapons
incident, blamed without evidence on the government, was used as the excuse for a second U.S. attack
on Syria. Both of these charges were widely and uncritically reported in the major media, though
neither of them is credible.
[3]
Regarding the first, as Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report pointed out, the AI report "is
based on anonymous sources outside of Syria, hearsay, and the dubious use of satellite photos reminiscent
of Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations in 2003." http://www.blackagendareport.com/shamnest-internati...rhouse
. See further Tony Cartalucci, US Revives Discredited Syria "Slaughterhouse" Story (Global Research,
May 16, 2017), Land Destroyer Report, http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-revives-discredited...590306
.)
The second charge seemed preposterous to me under all the circumstances, including its predictably
negative results for the Syrian government, and its reliance on "reports" from outside Syria based
on hearsay from such biased sources as anti-government fighters and their media. The analyses of
others confirmed and reinforced my own impression, e.g.,
Mike Whitney, The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia (CounterPunch, April 7, 2017),
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/07/why-the-unit...l-law/ (citing interview with former CIA
officer Philip Giraldi);
Theodore A. Postol, A Critique of 'False and Misleading' White House Claims About Syria's
Use of Lethal Gas (April 14, 2017), http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/critique_white_...70414/
(The third of MIT Prof. Postol's reports; the first is at http://images.shoutwiki.com/acloserlookonsyria/f/f3...17.pdf
and the second, an addendum to the first, is at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwUE9tam1...g/view
);
aTim Hayward, Chemical attacks in Syria: Is Assad responsible? (April 15, 2017), https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/chemical...sible/
. (Prof. Hayward recommends Prof. Postol's reports; says, "The premise of my post comes from the
[UK] government's position. I aim to show that even if one suspends disbelief and grants it, their
claimed conclusion still needs to be properly demonstrated"; and says further that "a fuller and
more formal statement of the question that I am introducing here is to be found at: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/...a.html
.").
It started right after the election with the attacks on General Mike Flynn. And as it has continued,
the campaign to demonize Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin has also intensified.
Bottom line: It seems clear there is no evidence, let alone proof, that computers at the DNC were
hacked at all, let alone by Russia, or that Russia tried in any way to "meddle" in the U.S. election.
It has thus far made no difference that, soon after the charge of Russian interference in the last
election was first made, an organization of intelligence veterans who have the expertise to know
pointed out that U.S. intelligence has the capability of presenting hard evidence of any such hacking
and had not done so (and, I would add, still hasn't). Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
stated bluntly: "We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child's play
to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack." They then
explained the difference between leaking and hacking.
[5] U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims ( December 12, 2016), https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-...laims/
.
There was ample justification for President Trump's firing of FBI director Comey. Ray McGovern
and William Binney observed:
The Washington establishment rejoiced last week over what seemed to be a windfall "gotcha"
moment, as President
Donald Trump said he had fired
FBI Director
James Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up
story" and, by all appearances, he is mostly correct.
Regarding the continuing investigations by the FBI, several Congressional committees, and others
looking for, if not proof, at least evidence of pre-election "collusion" by Trump or his people with
Russians supposedly hacking computers to influence the U.S. election, these are thus far based on
no – as in zero – evidence, and it's hard to know what might be made of anything they eventually
claim to find, in light of this:
On March 31, 2017,
WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the
agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look
like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, for example.
[8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed
the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials
from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of
world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems
still used by NSA.
Granted, this can be a costly enterprise, in that "The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls
the "Vault 7″ trove of CIA documents
required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that
amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines." But not to worry, "the DeepState
has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for
'proving' the Russians hacked."
[10] McGovern and Binney, op cit.
The May 16 editions of the government-supervised New York Times
carried a report that we-we Americans, this is all done in our names-now accuse the Assad
government of running a crematory at one of its prisons to dispose of the corpses of murdered
political prisoners so as to eliminate evidence of war crimes. This is based on satellite photographs
in the possession of American spooks for the past three or four years released a few days prior
to the next round of peace talks co-sponsored by Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Trump, a day after
meeting Lavrov, sent a fairly senior State Department diplomat to the talks in Astana, the Kazakstan
capital.
I note this latest on Syria only in part because it is a here-and-now adjunct of the Russiagate
insanity in Washington. It also marks a new low, and I do not say this for mere rhetorical effect,
in what now passes for credible assertion in our nation's capital. Here's my favorite passage
in the piece-which, had a student in one of my courses submitted it to fulfill an assignment,
would have merited an 'F' and a private discussion in my office:
"Mr. Jones acknowledged that the satellite photographs, taken over the last four years, were
not definitive. But in one from 2015, he said, the buildings were covered in snow- except for
one, suggesting a significant internal heat source. 'That would be consistent with a crematorium,'
he said. Officials added that a discharge stack and architectural elements thought to be a firewall
and air intake were also suggestive of a place to burn bodies. 'That would be consistent of a
crematorium,' he said."
Most certainly it would. And also a bakery, a heated basketball court, a machine shop, and
I think you will understand: The assertion means bananas. Even the Times , to my surprise,
took a step back from this silliness. The next paragraph:
"The United Nations is scheduled to begin another round of Syria peace talks in Geneva on May
23. The timing of the accusations seemed intended to pressure Russia, Mr. Assad's principal foreign
ally, into backing away from him."
Well, half a step in the direction of reality-which is half a step more than our Pravda on
the Hudson typically takes.
[As Professor Cohen said on the evening of May 16 to Tucker Carlson on the latter's daily
Fox News program:]
"The preposterous nonsense about the Syria crematorium pushes me into positing a kind of meta-phenomenon.
The Russia case is a problem, the Syria case, the Ukraine case: There is a far larger and more
consequential problem running through all of these matters. It is the frightening extent to which
we are succumbing to fabrication. An extraordinary proportion of our public discourse now rests
on nothing but ideologically inspired disinformation."
Looking for a little light in this deepening darkness, I find some comfort in former Australian
diplomat Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow (University of Western Australia, 2017). Mr.
Kevin examines past and present attitudes toward the people of Russia and to its leaders with sympathetic
eyes, and a deep understanding of Russian history and culture. Regarding the treatment of Russian
president Putin in Western media, for example, Mr. Kevin observes:
Not since Britain's concentrated personal loathing of their great strategic enemy Napoleon
in the Napoleonic wars was so much animosity brought to bear on one leader. Propaganda and demeaning
language against Putin became more systemic, sustained and near universal in Western foreign policy
and media communities than had ever been directed against any Soviet communist leader at the height
of the Cold War. This hostile campaign evoked an effective defensive global media strategy by
Russia. [...] A new kind of information Cold War took shape, with – paradoxically – Western media
voices more and more speaking with one disciplined Soviet-style voice, and Russian counter voices
fresher, more diverse and more agile.
[15] Cited from Return to Moscow . An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor
Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears
at https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY .
I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best
to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia.
This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries
of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which
can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition
and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective,
form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting.
In an insightful exploration of the psychological issues we confront in criticizing U.S. foreign
policy and countering the media that support it, which I think helps explain the ease with which
the current batch of lies is being successfully promulgated, Caitlin Johnstone opens with this powerful
combination:
"What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually,
by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of
gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent
even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting
their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley
Hopefully, the efforts of activists and analysts to make the real facts known, combined with the
escalating preposterousness of what we are told to believe, will produce enough cognitive dissonance
to wake us up before we sleepwalk into the end of the world. Meanwhile, if you share these concerns,
stay tuned to each of the dedicated and courageous authors I've mentioned, and the sites that have
posted their work, express your concerns to your federal legislators – and tell your friends!
Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971
and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007).
[8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed
the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials
from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world
military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still
used by NSA.
[13] James Howard Kunstler adds that "Trump, whatever you think of him – and I've never been
a fan, to put it mildly – was elected for a reason: the ongoing economic collapse of the nation,
and the suffering of a public without incomes or purposeful employment." And though I've never been
a fan, either, a discussion I found helpful to understanding the reasons for Trump's election was
posted by John Michael Greer, "When the Shouting Stops," November 16, 2016, at
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html ).
[15] Cited from Return to Moscow. An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor
Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears at
https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY
.
"... Or, if the neocons push ahead with their ultimate "regime change" strategy of staging a "color revolution" in Moscow to overthrow Putin, the outcome might be-not the pliable new leader that the neocons would want-but an unstable Russian nationalist who might see a nuclear attack on the U.S. as the only way to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
Democrats, liberals and some progressives might be feeling a little perplexed over what has happened
to Russiagate, the story that pounded Donald Trump every day since his election last November-until
April 4, that is.
On April 4, Trump fully capitulated to the neoconservative bash-Russia narrative amid
dubious claims about a chemical attack in Syria. On April 6, Trump fired off 59 Tomahawk missiles
at a Syrian airbase; he also restored the neocon demand for "regime change" in Syria; and he alleged
that Russia was possibly complicit in the supposed chemical attack.
Since Trump took those actions-in accordance with the neocon desires for more "regime change"
in the Middle East and a costly New Cold War with Russia-Russiagate has almost vanished from the
news.
I did find
a little story in the lower right-hand corner of page A12 of Saturday's New York Times about
a still-eager Democratic congressman, Mike Quigley of Illinois, who spent a couple of days in Cyprus
which attracted his interest because it is a known site for Russian money-laundering, but he seemed
to leave more baffled than when he arrived.
Yet, given all the hype and hullabaloo over Russiagate, the folks who were led to believe that
the vague and amorphous allegations were "bigger than Watergate" might now be feeling a little used.
It appears they may have been sucked into a conspiracy frenzy in which the Establishment exploited
their enthusiasm over the "scandal" in a clever maneuver to bludgeon an out-of-step new President
back into line.
If that's indeed the case, perhaps the most significant success of the Russiagate ploy was the
ouster of Trump's original National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who was seen as a key proponent
of a New Détente with Russia, and his replacement by General H.R. McMaster, a protégé of neocon favorite,
retired Gen. David Petraeus.
McMaster was viewed as the key player in arranging the April 6 missile strike on Syria and in
preparing a questionable "intelligence assessment" on April 11 to justify the rush to judgment. Although
McMaster's four-page white paper has been accepted as gospel by the mainstream U.S. news media,
its many weaknesses have been noted by actual experts, such as MIT national security and technology
professor Theodore Postol.
How Washington Works
But the way Official Washington works is that Trump was made to look weak when he argued for a
more cooperative and peaceful relationship with Russia. Hillary Clinton dubbed him Vladimir Putin's
"puppet" and "Saturday Night Live" portrayed Trump as in thrall to a bare-chested Putin. More significantly,
front-page stories every morning and cable news segments every night created the impression of a
compromised U.S. President in Putin's pocket.
Conversely, Trump was made to look strong when he fired off missiles against a Syrian airbase
and talked tough about Russian guilt. Neocon commentator Charles Krauthammer
praised Trump's shift as demonstrating that "America is back."
Trump further enhanced his image for toughness when his military dropped the GBU-43/B Massive
Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed the "mother of all bombs," on some caves in Afghanistan.
While the number of casualties inflicted by the blast was unclear, Trump benefited from the admiring
TV and op-ed commentaries about him finally acting "presidential."
But the real test of political courage is to go against the grain in a way that may be unpopular
in the short term but is in the best interests of the United States and the world community in the
longer term.
In that sense, Trump seeking peaceful cooperation with Russia-even amid the intense anti-Russian
propaganda of the past several years-required actual courage, while launching missiles and dropping
bombs might win praise but actually make the U.S. position in the world weaker.
Trump, however, saw his fledgling presidency crumbling under the daily barrage of Russiagate,
even though
there was no evidence that his campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the U.S. election
and there wasn't even clear evidence that Russia was behind the disclosure of Democratic emails,
via WikiLeaks, during the campaign.
Still, the combined assault from the Democrats, the neocons and the mainstream media forced Trump
to surrender his campaign goal of achieving a more positive relationship with Russia and greater
big-power collaboration in the fight against terrorism.
For Trump, the incessant chatter about Russiagate was like a dripping water torture. The thin-skinned
Trump fumed at his staff and twittered messages aimed at changing the narrative, such as accusing
President Obama of "wiretapping" Trump Tower. But nothing worked.
However, once Trump waved the white flag by placing his foreign policy under the preferred banner
of the neoconservatives, the Russiagate pressure stopped. The op-ed pages suddenly were hailing his
"decisiveness." If you were a neocon, you might say about Russiagate: Mission accomplished!
Russiagate's Achievements
Besides whipping Trump into becoming a more compliant politician, Russiagate could claim some
other notable achievements. For instance, it spared the national Democrats from having to confront
their own failures in Campaign 2016 by diverting responsibility for the calamity of Trump's election.
Instead of Democratic leaders taking responsibility for picking a dreadful candidate, ignoring
the nation's anti-establishment mood, and failing to offer any kind of inspiring message, the national
Democrats could palm off the blame on "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
Thus, rather than looking in the mirror and trying to figure out how to correct their deep-seated
problems, the national Democrats could instead focus on a quixotic tilting at Trump's impeachment.
Many on the Left joined in this fantasy because they have been so long without a Movement that
the huge post-inaugural "pussy hat" marches were a temptation that they couldn't resist. Russiagate
became the fuel to keep the "Movement" bandwagon rolling. #Resistance!
It didn't matter that the "scandal"-the belief that Russia somehow conspired with Trump to rig
the U.S. presidential election-amounted to
a bunch of informational dots that didn't connect.
Russiagate also taught the American "left" to learn to love McCarthyism since "proof" of guilt
pretty much amounted to having had contact with a Russian-and anyone who questioned the dubious factual
basis of the "scandal" was dismissed as a "Russian propagandist" or a "Moscow stooge" or a purveyor
of "fake news."
Another Russiagate winner was the mainstream news media which got a lot of mileage-and loads of
new subscription money-by pushing the convoluted conspiracy. The New York Times positioned itself
as the great protector of "truth" and The Washington Post adopted a melodramatic new slogan: "Democracy
Dies in Darkness."
ran a front-page article touting an anonymous Internet group called PropOrNot that identified
some 200 Internet news sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other major sources of independent
journalism, as guilty of "Russian propaganda." Facts weren't needed; the accused had no chance for
rebuttal; the accusers even got to hide in the shadows; the smear was the thing.
The Post and the Times also conflated news outlets that dared to express skepticism toward claims
from the U.S. State Department with some entrepreneurial sites that trafficked in intentionally made-up
stories or "fake news" to make money.
To the Post and Times, there appeared to be no difference between questioning the official U.S.
narrative on, say, the Ukraine crisis and knowingly fabricating pretend news articles to get lots
of clicks. Behind the smokescreen of Russiagate, the mainstream U.S. news media took the position
that there was only one side to a story, what Official Washington chose to believe.
While it's likely that there will be some revival of Russiagate to avoid the appearance of a completely
manufactured scandal, the conspiracy theory's more significant near-term consequence could be that
it has taught Donald Trump a dangerous lesson.
If he finds himself in a tight spot,
the way
out is to start bombing some "enemy" halfway around the world. The next time, however, the target
might not be so willing to turn the other cheek. If, say, Trump launches a preemptive strike against
North Korea, the result could be a retaliatory nuclear attack against South Korea or Japan.
Or, if the neocons push ahead with their ultimate "regime change" strategy of staging
a "color revolution" in Moscow to overthrow Putin, the outcome might be-not the pliable new leader
that the neocons would want-but an unstable Russian nationalist who might see a nuclear attack on
the U.S. as the only way to protect the honor of Mother Russia.
For all his faults, Trump did offer a more temperate approach toward U.S.-Russian relations, which
also could have tamped down spending for nuclear and other strategic weapons and freed up some of
that money for infrastructure and other needs at home. But that was before Russiagate.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, "America's Stolen Narrative," either
in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... Either way, this constitutes a coup d'etat. ..."
"... The American people elected a president who promised an America First agenda, and the establishment is using the threat of an unjustifiable impeachment or unconstitutional use of the 25th amendment to nullify the results of that election. ..."
The ridiculous "Russian influence" narrative is a cynical ploy to pressure Trump to abandon
his America First campaign promises, and instead wage a counter productive regime change war in
Syria.
If Trump is not amenable to pressure, they establishment apparently plans to impeach Trump
and use Pence as their tool instead.
Either way, this constitutes a coup d'etat.
The American people elected a president who promised an America First agenda, and the establishment
is using the threat of an unjustifiable impeachment or unconstitutional use of the 25th amendment
to nullify the results of that election.
Looks like you do not have enough IQ to understand that Russiagate is a typical "color revolution"
scenario. I am lost. How such a post can correlate with your other posts, where you actually show understanding
of complex things (your neoliberal bias notwithstanding)? Incredible! Is there two different PGL here ? Early dementia ?
This is even not funny, because anybody with IQ above 100 understands the POTUS does not matter
much in foreign policy. So for Russians the difference is close to zero and risks are high to
engage is such a behavior. Actually they probably have much more serious "compromat" on Hillary
and, especially, Bill, so Hillary might be preferable to them.
Is it so difficult to understand that POTUS is just a placeholder of minor player, and other
"very serious people" determine the US foreign policy.
To say nothing about that evidence is not here, and the whole "Purple revolution" scenario
with the key idea of delegitimization of Trump via Russiagate is taken directly from Gene Sharp's
book.
Empire of Lies is a 2008
thriller novel
written by Andrew
Klavan. The book takes its title from a quote by George Orwell often used by
Ron Paul, "Truth is treason in
an empire of lies." Masha Gessen is a part of US propaganda empire, and now trying to defend it
by all means. Demonstrating the level of sophisticaion I never suspected of her. I like the
term "aspirational hypocrisy", because now the USA neocon foreign policy and neocon's wars can be defined
as the "Wars of aspirational hypocrisy". But this is all I like in the article. It is useful as as sample
of sophisticated propaganda. That's it.
In any case this article is nice example of "deception as an art form" and this neoliberal Masha
proved to be a real artist in this art.
Notable quotes:
"... Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom. ..."
"... One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. ..."
"... Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers. ..."
"... Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior. ..."
"... In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles. ..."
"... when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?" ..."
"... To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy ..."
"... No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ... ..."
"... How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party? ..."
Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it
is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom.
One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition
of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values
- to be better. This tradition has set the standard of behavior for government officials and
has shaped Americans' understanding of what their government and their country represent. Over the
last four weeks, Mr. Trump has lashed out against any criticism of his behavior, because, as he never
tires of pointing out, "We won."
In requesting the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, however, Mr.
Trump made his first public concession to political expectations. Hypocrisy has scored a minor victory
in America. This is a good thing.
The word "hypocrisy" was thrown around a lot during the 2016 presidential campaign. Both Mr. Trump
and Bernie Sanders accused their respective parties and the country's elites of hypocrisy. As the
election neared, some journalists tried to turn the accusation around on Mr. Trump, taking him to
task, for example, for his stand on immigration. If Mr. Trump favored such a hard line on immigration,
the logic went, should he not then favor the deportation of his own wife, Melania, who was alleged
to have worked while in the United States on a visitor's visa?
The charge of hypocrisy didn't stick, not so much because it placed its proponents, unwittingly,
in the distasteful position of advocating the deportation of someone for a long-ago and common transgression,
but because Mr. Trump wasn't just breaking the rules of political conduct: He was destroying them.
He was openly claiming that he abused the system to benefit himself. If he didn't pay his taxes and
got away with it, this made him a good businessman. If he could force himself on women, that made
him more of a man. He acted as though this primitive logic were obvious and shared by all.
Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is
rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites
people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong,
only winners and losers.
Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps
to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance
and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior.
In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor
Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely
by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically,
that their politics are based on values and principles.
This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of "whataboutism,"
the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians
retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption,
they claim that the entire world is corrupt.
This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration
for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded
Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?"
To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their
country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy
to understand the country. No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea
that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ...
The faux librul side is all Joe McCarthy phony red scaring and surveillance of the opposition
activists sort of like what Army Intell did to hippies protesting the liberals' debacle in Southeast
Asia.
Deep state surveillance and trashing the Bill of Rights is a legacy of the past 8 years.
Flynn could have said something "inappropriate" by a Clintonista definition of "inappropriate",
and he "could" be prosecuted under a law designed to muzzle US citizens, that has never been tried
bc a Bill of rights argument would win!
How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo
(the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?
If the fascists are coming they would keep Obama's FBI!
We also know for certain that there were numerous violations of the voting rights act due to Crosscheck
and other caging operations. We also know that a number of state election officials computers
were hacked by Russia - and I have seen the guts of those Diabold machines and even with my limited
programing skills I could hack one and cover my tracks.
New York Times responds to Comey's challenge of its story Comey rips media for 'dead wrong'
Russia stories MORE (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report
from Feb. 14 titled "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."
"Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential
campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials
in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the
Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that
it was.
The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number
of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence
officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia.
"... At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, ..."
"... Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent." ..."
"... In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with the final bill expected to top $1 billion. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of U.S. intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President. ..."
"... Well, Morell is at least consistent. More telling, this gibberish is music to the ears of those whom Pope Francis, speaking to Congress last September, referred to as the "blood-drenched" arms traders. Morell seems to be counting on his deep insights being music to the ears of Hillary Clinton, as well. ..."
"... As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
"... The American psyche has been shaped by oligarchy media for selfish motives. Exceptionalism, fear, propaganda and the Kardashians keep the vulnerable public in line with their corporate goals, entertained and uninformed. The Internet is changing that, as evidenced by Bernie's rise. ..."
"... This CIA psychopath was the one who purportedly told pet goat Bush upon Air Force One that dark day, that the ongoing "attack" was most likely Bin Laden. Morell gave Bush the CIA's daily intelligence briefings. And this psychopath was with Obama when Bin Laden was "killed". ..."
Published on Friday, by
Consortium News Mike Morell's Kill-Russians Advice Washington's foreign policy hot shots
are flexing their rhetorical, warmongering muscles to impress Hillary Clinton, including ex-CIA acting
director Morell who calls for killing Russians and Iranians by
Ray McGovern
33 Comments A closer look at the record of Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, is
warranted. (Photo: AP) Perhaps former CIA acting director Michael Morell's shamefully provocative
rhetoric toward Russia and Iran will prove too unhinged even for Hillary Clinton. It appears equally
likely that it will succeed in earning him a senior job in a possible Clinton administration, so
it behooves us to have a closer look at Morell's record.
My initial reaction of disbelief and anger was the same as that of my VIPS colleague, Larry Johnson,
and
the points Larry made about Morell's behavior in the Benghazi caper, Iran, Syria, needlessly
baiting nuclear-armed Russia, and how to put a "scare" into Bashar al-Assad give ample support to
Larry's characterization of Morell's comments as "reckless and vapid." What follows is an attempt
to round out the picture on the ambitious 57-year-old Morell.
I suppose we need to start with Morell telling PBS/CBS interviewer Charlie Rose on Aug. 8 that
he (Morell) wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. make the Russians pay a price in
Syria."
Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"
Morell: "Yeah."
Rose: "And killing Iranians?"
Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran."
You might ask what excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose?
It was a highly unusual Aug. 5 New York Times
op-ed titled "I ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton."
Peabody award winner Rose - having made no secret of how much he admires the glib, smooth-talking
Morell - performed true to form. Indeed, he has interviewed him every other month, on average, over
the past two years, while Morell has been a national security analyst for CBS.
This interview
, though, is a must for those interested in gauging the caliber of bureaucrats who have bubbled
to the top of the CIA since the disastrous tenure of George Tenet (sorry, the interview goes on and
on for 46 minutes).
A Heavy Duty
Such interviews are a burden for unreconstructed, fact-based analysts of the old school. In a
word, they are required to watch them, just as they must plow through the turgid prose of "tell-it-all"
memoirs. But due diligence can sometimes harvest an occasional grain of wheat among the chaff.
For example, George W. Bush's memoir, Decision Points , included a passage the former
president seems to have written himself. Was Bush relieved to learn, just 15 months before he left
office, the "high-confidence," unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran had
stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed work on such weapons? No way!
In his memoir, he complains bitterly that this judgment in that key 2007 National Intelligence
Estimate "tied my hands on the military side. After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using
the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no
active nuclear weapons program?" No, I am not making this up. He wrote that.
In another sometimes inadvertently revealing memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years
at the CIA, CIA Director George Tenet described Michael Morell, whom he picked to be CIA's briefer
of President George W. Bush, in these terms: "Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike
speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush hit it
off almost immediately. Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief's side."
Wonder what Morell was telling Bush about those "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and the
alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Was Morell winking at Bush the same way Tenet winked
at the head of British intelligence on July 20, 2002, telling him that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq?
High on Morell
Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But
he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous
Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one.
So Morell reviewed the "intelligence" that went into Powell's thoroughly deceptive account of
the Iraqi threat! Powell later called that dramatic speech, which wowed Washington's media and foreign
policy elites and was used to browbeat the few remaining dissenters into silence, a "blot" on his
record.
In Morell's own memoir, The Great War of Our Time , Morell apologized to former Secretary
of State Powell for the bogus CIA intelligence that found its way into Powell's address. Morell
told CBS: "I thought it important to do so because he went out there and made this case, and
we were wrong."
It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;"
it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a
five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the
fraudulent nature of the WMD propaganda campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he kept quiet and
got promoted.
Out of Harm's Way
For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending
him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting
director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [non-existent] WMD.
Cohen made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible in late November 2003, and was still
holding out some hope that WMD would be found. He noted, however, "If we eventually are proved
wrong - that is, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the WMD programs were dormant
or abandoned – the American people will be told the truth " And then Stu disappeared into the woodwork.
In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive
WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with
the final bill expected to top $1 billion.
In Morell's The Great War of Our Time , he writes, "In the summer of 2003 I became CIA's
senior focal point for liaison with the analytic community in the United Kingdom." He notes that
one of the "dominant" issues, until he left the U.K. in early 2006, was "Iraq, namely our failure
to find weapons of mass destruction." (It was a PR problem; Prime Minister Tony Blair and Morell's
opposite numbers in British intelligence were fully complicit in the "dodgy-dossier" type of intelligence.)
When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed
the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until
moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013.
Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday,
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very
top of U.S. intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever
is likely to be the next President.
'Wisdom' on China
For those who did not make it to the very end in watching the most recent Michael-and-Charlie
show, here is an example of what Morell and Rose both seem to consider trenchant analysis. Addressing
the issue of U.S. relations with China, Morell described the following as a main "negative:"
"We both have large militaries in the same place on the planet, the Pacific. What does that mean?
It means you have to plan for war against each other, and we both do; it means you have to equip
yourself with weapons systems for war against each other, which both of us do; and it means you have
to exercise those forces for war against each other, and both of us do. And both sides see all of
three of those things. That leads to a natural tension and pulls you apart. "
Those who got to the end of Morell's book had already been able to assimilate that wisdom on page
325:
"The negative side [regarding relations with China] includes the fact that each country needs
to prepare for war against each other (because our militaries are in close proximity to each other).
Each plans for such a war, each trains for it, and each must equip its forces with the modern
weaponry to fight it [leading] to tension in the relationship. "
Well, Morell is at least consistent. More telling, this gibberish is music to the ears of those
whom Pope Francis, speaking to Congress last September, referred to as the "blood-drenched" arms
traders. Morell seems to be counting on his deep insights being music to the ears of Hillary Clinton,
as well.
As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump,
well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times
op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr.
Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Let the bizarre-ness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an
agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from
a control officer.
However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make
the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such
an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder"
of ISIS.
I will watch for this creep to show up in Clinton's administration as these two seem to be peas
in a pod.
Hillary has a hard time relating to normal people on the campaign trail because her center of
focus is in foreign policy. It stands to reason that she will want people with the kill instinct
around her. Being a neocon at heart, her need for accurate intelligence is small and her desire
has always been to go after Iran for Bibi and Russia, well, just because they are the go to enemy.
Russia is standing in the way of taking out Assad and clearing a path through Syria to Iran.
Rest assured that is a public official in Russia publicly stated to a national TV audience that
Russia needed to start killing Americans so as to send a message, the western media would be in
an uproar proclaiming it as a unacceptable provocation.
Entire hours of broadcasts on multiple "News shows" would invite in pundits to make the most
dire of pronouncements all concluding this showing Russia as a nation seeking war and conflict.
A simple fact. It is the Government of the USA that is the bully here and that same Government
is the greatest threat to world peace on this globe. It is the USA that heads the "Empire of Evil".
If it weren't for the CIA--an organization that passes out licenses to kill the way the old church
of Rome handed out "Indulgences" to its wealthiest donors--someone like Mike Morrell would be
forced to find his calling as a street smart serial killer.
"It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;"
it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from
a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
It's important to keep in mind that the CIA constantly manufactures false cases, false flags,
bogus assassinations, and that makes lying child's play. One does it enough and their conscience
(presuming they had one to begin with) goes cold and callous.
Morrell would be just as comfortable serving Hitler as he would an American dictator or head
of state.
If there weren't entrenched, empowered interests BENT upon war, maniacal minds like that of
Morrell would not be tolerated... nor used.
Someone had to pretend that the false pretexts were true. Imagine if the money spent on searching
for weapons they KNEW didn't exist instead went to improving life for citizens of the targeted
nations? But then, there'd be no terrorism; and without terrorism, how could the now gargantuan
military infrastructure aimed at controlling citizens (as the global elites tighten the fiscal
screws) come into place?
These professional cons and killers (like felons placed into jail cells where they learn from
others how to improve "their craft") gained much from the writings of Goebbels. There must be
an outside enemy threat made existentially real... and then, all Constitutional liberties can
be rescinded under the guise of protecting citizens.
Notice all the recent terrorist events. Some are no doubt real; but others are false flags
and the net impact of all of this is that the entire world is now perceived (by the spooks and
the Pentagon) as a battleground.
And when there are vast, well-organized armies, it creates on the part of those brave enough
to resist, ingenious forms of asymmetric warfare. Therefore, more and more unexpected places will
indeed blow up. Meanwhile, how much $ is dumped into surveillance which NEVER stops these events?
I guess the uniformed spooks are too busy in forums like this one, watching the Left (intellectuals,
poets, labor leaders, and those who refuse to see things the way elites intend for citizens to
see things) and/or watching porn... to notice.
Welcome to theater of the absurd. It's everywhere these days!
This bloke is a terrorist by anybody's dictionary definition. Simple.
The last person who thought that killing Russians was a good idea ended up committing suicide
just before the Russians got to his bunker in Berlin. This Morrell character would have us all
commit nuclear suicide so as to fulfill his insane fantasy.
One stupid (C)ommittee to (I)ntervene (A)nywhere dick dead, wow. How about 'kill'
the Pentagon which seems to be the root of the problem? Not a person but the whole phkn deal.
All those folks could 'maybe' just go 'get a life' instead of being terminal perverts.
Have you seen this material? It's very compelling:
Yes. This particular interview includes much of what PCR has been discussing for the past many
months. I'm surprised, though, that he left out specifically discussing the U.S. government's
war against alternate currencies to the dollar that resulted in the destruction of Libya (and
the death of Gaddafi) and now all of the covert and overt actions against the BRICS governments.
Articles addressing these continuing issues are normally first published on the following sites:
He may end up paired up with Ted Cruz as Secretaries of State and Defense. Improbable? Not
to me. Is anything improbable any more?
It used to be that people in positions in the State and Defense Departments may have been murdering
perceived enemies of the State, but they didn't go speaking out about it publicly. They tried
to maintain the image that the USA only killed in self defense like the white hat heroes of the
old cowboy movies, Roy Rogers and all like that, where the black hat bad guys always had to reach
for their " shooting irons' first so they could be plugged fair and square.
That ethic is long gone and was probably never real but the idea was maintained. But now we
have President BO not exactly bragging about his "drone kill list" but not in any way distancing
himself from public knowledge of it either. Kissengerian "realpolitik" and Big Henry is HRC's
hero and role model so she is positioned to become the Murder Mama of the west, ready to show
them Chinese and Ruskies who's ready to be fastest straight shootin'ist gun slinger in the global
town Main Street with Cruz and Morrell at her flanks like the Earp Brothers at the OK Corral with
Doc Holliday Kissinger limping along right there with 'em
The fact that murderous authoritarian conservatives get ahead in government and business far better
than peace loving, egalitarian liberals, says a lot about the American psychic.
The issue is not so much to be rid of them, but rather not to sustain a legal, financial,
cultural, political, and tactical infrastructure that REWARDS them and counts on them to effortlessly
enact the dirty work of Empire.
Essentially, the Shock Doctrine handbook might as well define "sociopath" as a required bona
fide in the career search for the right candidates.
To the contrary, it says a lot about the Power Structure and who it invites in (to positions
of influence) and why. There is NO logic behind posts that continually turn the problem of sociopaths
in empowered positions onto The People.
The Page and Gilens Study made it clear that The People's Will is NOT what those in government
positions institute.
Find any long-sustained society on this planet (since the onset of patriarchy) that doesn't
evidence a political/social/economic hierarchy?
The most egalitarian nations, Europe's social Democracies have hardly achieved full Democratic
representation or full equality but they go much further than "political business as usual" within
the U.S.
The bottom line is that in most nations there have been long-established family dynasties.
And when 50 people hold half the nation's wealth or even half the world's wealth, there is no
possible way that ordinary citizens can direct policies.
This much concentrated wealth taints all systems of would-be Democratic representation.
And the problem didn't arise overnight. It's been long-standing.
Our own nation has only enjoyed short periods where power, privilege, and economic opportunity
were somewhat widely shared. To the Black community that marker is yet to be realized and ditto
for many Hispanics and women.
Nonetheless, the elites like shadowy creatures built up their think tank influence in the shadows
and patiently dismembered the New Deal piece by piece over the course of the past 3-4 decades.
When processes are done by stealth and through gradual accommodation, and when the mass media's
"experts" all lie about what's going on, and when false flags are used to decimate civil liberties
and to justify massive crackdowns on citizens... I think those persons enacting these strategies
should be held as the accountable parties... rather than those being done unto.
I mean how different is this castigation than that which justifies the violence on the part
of the white police officer when he and his gang of Neanderthals let loose with premeditated deadly
force against a Black kid or man who is unarmed?
How different is if from the mindset that knocks down the doors of families living in their
own nations! In Afghanistan, Iraq, etc... and then if someone gets shot, it's the fault of those
under attack?
This is the mindset of the rapist/dominator. It has NO place in a would-be Progressive forum
yet I come up against it daily. That is why I am SURE that many who post here (with regularity
under a constantly changing BATTERY of screen names) are in the military or otherwise in some
branch of its now farmed out "Intelligence-gathering" Hydra.
To the contrary, it says a lot about the Power Structure and who it invites in (to positions
of influence) and why.
There is NO logic behind posts that continually turn the problem of sociopaths in empowered
positions onto The People.
The American psyche has been shaped by oligarchy media for selfish motives. Exceptionalism,
fear, propaganda and the Kardashians keep the vulnerable public in line with their corporate goals,
entertained and uninformed. The Internet is changing that, as evidenced by Bernie's rise.
How could anyone destroy the CIA? It's like roaches hiding behind the woodwork.
Besides, any position that advocates a violent solution adds to the problem of violence in
this world.
I am waiting for Lofgren's book on the Deep State. I ordered a paperback copy back in January
not realizing that it would not be published till this coming September.
I am well-aware of the Deep State and its relationship to NSA and CIA and lots more.
This CIA psychopath was the one who purportedly told pet goat Bush upon Air Force One that
dark day, that the ongoing "attack" was most likely Bin Laden. Morell gave Bush the CIA's daily
intelligence briefings. And this psychopath was with Obama when Bin Laden was "killed".
But hey, I'm one of those tin foil hat wearing Truthers. Excuse me for questioning these jerks
all of these years later.
It's the human "psyche". Greed unifies, but ideals fragment as each idealist tries
to demonstrate how perfect they are in contrast to the other idealists.
"... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
"... Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man." ..."
"... Since Mueller was apparently appointed at least in part as a result of Comey's leak, and no evidence has been shown of the phony Russia charges despite months of possibly extra-legal digging, Mueller's appointment should be cancelled and his office liquidated if that can be done in some fashion. If not, may be he should show more integrity than has heretofore been the case and liquidate the office himself. ..."
"... My old San Fran days memory recalls that "liberal" Democrat Diane Feinstein nominated neo-nazi Republican Mueller to US Attorney for N. California. I recall some thought because her husband was under investigation for a corrupt arms deal. That's just my memory ..."
"... So Clinton's odd lesbian Attorney General helped boost a Republican to greater powers. ..."
"... He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of "no warning signs" of any sort of attack. ..."
"... Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley, that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui." ..."
"... To summarize, we have a "Republican" from Northern California nominated by a "liberal" Democrat to become part of the Clinton "Justice" department who played a key role as FBI Director to cover 9-11. He now reappears from the grave with great praise from Democrats openly plotting to overthrow President Trump to investigate absurdly silly things like speaking to Russian diplomats. Let us recall Trump openly expressed doubts about the 9-11 twin towers ruse on 9-11! ..."
"... The 911 cover up team is now about to take President Trump down over yet another false flag, and this team would include the leadership of both parties. How convenient that the Democrats are doing the dirty work so that Fox News and the rest can now engage in covering up the Republicans' behind-the-scenes role in all this. ..."
"... March 07, 2017 CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley ..."
"... Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should be very cautions following them. They are likely faked. ..."
"... Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."
"... The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult include the following: ..."
Mainstream commentators display amnesia when they describe former FBI Directors Robert Mueller
and James Comey as stellar and credible law enforcement figures. Perhaps if they included J. Edgar
Hoover, such fulsome praise could be put into proper perspective.
Although these Hoover successors, now occupying center stage in the investigation of President
Trump, have been hailed for their impeccable character by much of Official Washington, the truth
is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush Administration (Mueller as FBI Director
and James Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses
of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited
plain vanilla incompetence.
TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a "
bombshell
memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's
having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal responsibility for intelligence
failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed
the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring
and Summer of 2001.
Bush Administration officials had circled the wagons and refused to publicly own up to what the
9/11 Commission eventually concluded, "that the
system had
been blinking red ." Failures to read, share or act upon important intelligence, which a FBI
agent witness termed "
criminal negligence " in later trial testimony, were therefore not fixed in a timely manner.
(Some failures were never fixed at all.)
Worse, Bush and Cheney used that post 9/11 period of obfuscation to "roll out" their misbegotten
"war on terror," which only served to
exponentially increase worldwide terrorism .
Unfulfilled Promise
I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting the
night before we both testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements
and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever witnessed a similar situation to what was
behind the FBI's pre 9/11 failures.
A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney's ginning up intelligence
to launch the unjustified, counterproductive and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer,
emailing him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President
Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded
to my email.
Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath
of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the "
post 9/11 round-up "
of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at
the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially
P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply
grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the
detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that
none turned out to be terrorists .
A History of Failure
Long before he became FBI Director, serious
questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling
decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other
"top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered
through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100
million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang.
For his part, Deputy Attorney General
James Comey , too, went along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on
a number of highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance of Americans and
torture of captives . Comey also defended the Bush Administration's three-year-long detention
of an American citizen without charges or right to counsel.
Up to the March 2004 night in Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room, both Comey and Mueller
were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel
memos mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial"
or "war presidency" powers, and requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state
of emergency."
The Comey/Mueller Myth
What's not well understood is that Comey's and Mueller's joint intervention to stop Bush's men
from forcing the sick Attorney General to sign the certification that night was a short-lived moment.
A few days later, they all simply went back to the drawing board to draft new legal loopholes to
continue the same (unconstitutional) surveillance of Americans.
The mythology of this episode, repeated endlessly throughout the press, is that Comey and Mueller
did something significant and lasting in that hospital room. They didn't. Only the legal rationale
for their unconstitutional actions was tweaked.
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting
torture programs
after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document
such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance
and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA
and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
ORDER IT NOW
Neither Comey nor Mueller - who are reported to be "
joined at the hip " - deserve their current lionization among politicians and mainstream media.
Instead of Jimmy Stewart-like "G-men" with reputations for principled integrity, the two close confidants
and collaborators merely proved themselves, along with former CIA Director George "Slam Dunk" Tenet,
reliably politicized sycophants, enmeshing themselves in a series of wrongful abuses of power along
with official incompetence.
It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called "one of the
closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen," Mueller was
chosen as
Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him
to do.
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out
against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the
truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."
Coleen Rowley , a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo
to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of
TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. Her 2003 letter to Robert Mueller in opposition to
launching the Iraq War is
archived in full text on the NYT and her 2013 op-ed entitled "
Questions for the FBI Nominee " was published on the day of James Comey's confirmation hearing.
This piece will also be cross-posted on Rowley's Huffington Post page.
As Colleen Rowley has so thoroughly and unequivocally demonstrated here, both Comey and Mueller
are living examples of the Peter Principle (that managers rise to the level of their incompetence).
According to Jonathan Turley, one of the best and most respected legal experts, Comey may have
violated the law using his professor friend to leak what he thought was an incriminating memorandum
documenting Trump's "hope" that he would lay off Flynn because Flynn was a "good guy." Even torture
advocate Dershowitz, who, for his obvious faults, is a talented lawyer, indicates that it is preposterous
to call this "obstruction of justice" when Trump had the power to pardon anybody. Meanwhile, the
fact that Comey didn't find it necessary to document his interrogation of the harpy on the "matter"
of her email server reveals that he seemed totally willing for justice to be obstructed in a more
obvious fashion if he was on board with those doing the obstructing. It also came out that some
of his testimony today appears to contradict statements he made under oath to Senator Grassley
in a hearing dated May 3.
Since Mueller was apparently appointed at least in part as a result of Comey's leak, and
no evidence has been shown of the phony Russia charges despite months of possibly extra-legal
digging, Mueller's appointment should be cancelled and his office liquidated if that can be done
in some fashion. If not, may be he should show more integrity than has heretofore been the case
and liquidate the office himself.
My old San Fran days memory recalls that "liberal" Democrat Diane Feinstein nominated neo-nazi
Republican Mueller to US Attorney for N. California. I recall some thought because her husband
was under investigation for a corrupt arms deal. That's just my memory
There are now lots of current news stories of Feinstein and open coup plotter Schumer excited
about Muller's appointment to convict Trump for something. This from her own website:
Washington-Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the following statement on the
appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel: "The appointment of Bob
Mueller as special counsel for the Russia investigation is a good first step to get to the bottom
of the many questions we have about Russian interference in our election and possible ties to
the president.
"Bob was a fine U.S. attorney, a great FBI director and there's no better person who could
be asked to perform this function. He is respected, he is talented and he has the knowledge and
ability to do the right thing."
"In announcing his resignation, Yamaguchi said Attorney General Janet Reno will appoint Robert
Mueller, a former federal prosecutor in San Francisco, as interim U.S. attorney. He is currently
chief of the homicide division at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C. Mueller has spent
almost his entire career as a federal prosecutor, doing both civil and criminal work in the San
Francisco district and then moving to the U.S. attorney's office in Boston. He eventually joined
the Justice Department, where he was an assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division."
So Clinton's odd lesbian Attorney General helped boost a Republican to greater powers.
Mueller went on to play key roles in the PanAm Lockerbie coverup and the 9-11 ruse, despite
this:
"Mr. Mueller's credibility was harshly attacked in a letter made public last weekend in which
a Minneapolis agent said the F.B.I. director was engaged in a public relations campaign "to protect
the F.B.I. at all costs" after Sept. 11. But they said a review of his public remarks about the
Sept. 11 investigation had raised uncomfortable questions about the F.B.I. director's credibility
and about his ability to gather accurate information from his deputies."
In a news conference on Wednesday that amounted to a painful mea culpa for the bureau and for
his performance in the nine months since he took over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr.
Mueller said, "I have made mistakes occasionally in my public comments based on information or
a lack of information that I subsequently got."
He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered
assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be
training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of
"no warning signs" of any sort of attack.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said
his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley,
that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the
investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui."
To summarize, we have a "Republican" from Northern California nominated by a "liberal"
Democrat to become part of the Clinton "Justice" department who played a key role as FBI Director
to cover 9-11. He now reappears from the grave with great praise from Democrats openly plotting
to overthrow President Trump to investigate absurdly silly things like speaking to Russian diplomats.
Let us recall Trump openly expressed doubts about the 9-11 twin towers ruse on 9-11!
Yes, all corruption in DC eventually becomes a 9-11 thread.
The 911 cover up team is now about to take President Trump down over yet another false
flag, and this team would include the leadership of both parties. How convenient that the Democrats
are doing the dirty work so that Fox News and the rest can now engage in covering up the Republicans'
behind-the-scenes role in all this.
Also, Colleen Rowley mentions that Meuller ignored his FBI agents' warnings about not going
along with CIA torture overseas, yet there is reason to believe that FBI agents were in fact sent
overseas to coordinate this activity with the CIA and Mossad.
March 07, 2017 CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley
Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack
can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should
be very cautions following them. They are likely faked.
Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose
Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria
and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.
I need to leak a memo (actually my own interpretation of what happened after the fact) to counter
any possible lies Trump might say just in case Trump produces a tape of the meeting.
Counterpunch does publish many interesting articles, once upon a time, I was to considering
subscription to the print edition, but no credit card, and the 80 to 90% idiocy on the site, The
article at the link below is not unrepresentative, though it is at the bottom end of the scale.
March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate
Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics
– it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive
electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information
onto President Trump.
Jan 2, 2017 CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story
It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used
a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's
not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game!
Nice Try Clinton News Network!
@Che Guava This is another good read Che Guava. November 07, 2016 FBI Director James Comey:
Hillary Should Not Face Criminal Charges
But Who Conducted the Investigation? FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Whose Wife Received
$467,500. FBI Director James Comey (image left) decided to issue a report two days before the
November election confirming that there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hillary in
relation to the recent release of 650,000 Emails on October 28th.
@Carlton Meyer This a very good read on the 9/11 event. September 07, 2016 September 11, 2001:
The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century "What Really Happened"?
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to be trucked away and shipped to China – an order that constitutes
disturbing a crime scene – which is a federal crime.
@MarkinLA I need to leak a memo (actually my own interpretation of what happened after the
fact) to counter any possible lies Trump might say just in case Trump produces a tape of the meeting.
What is wrong with this sentence? Actually what is right about your post ia that it draws attention
to the likelihood that the President would have recordings of all such conversations (not ones
when he says "come for a walk with me while I stretch my legs in the garden") and that, anyway,
a canny fellow like Comey would assume so and, accordingly, make notes immediately afterwards
to ensure that he was right on all the key points. Which all leads to the conclusion that recordings
would bear out Comey.
@Agent76 As a big factor in Comey's thinking just before the election when new material possibly
pertinent to Clinton's irregullarities came to FBI attention would have been his own self interest
it seems reasonable to suppose that both his embarrassment of Clinton by his communication to
Congress and his exoneration of her were part of a process which began with "how bad could it
be for me if Clinton wins [as I sulppose she will] and something really bad turns up from the
investigation of the emails?". Then, given it was true, the exonerating statement is a no brainer
(he restores his position as well as he can with Clinton in case she wins and he inly diminishes
his credit with Trump slightly if Trumo wins).
The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11
cult include the following:
Believers in the ridiculous official narrative of the 19 miracle working Jihadist amateur
pilots and hydrocarbon based office fires.
Those who maintain that the Bush Administration was "incompetent" and that it "ignored
the warnings."
The LIHOP crowd- Bush and Cheney deviously let it happen on purpose.
Robert Muller's role has nothing to do with being an impartial prosecutor but about being a
"fixer" in proper Washingtonian parlance. He was probably brought into the FBI to insure a foreordained
"slam dunk" verdict that 19 Arab amateur pilots hijacked 4 airliners led by a deathly ill man
living in a cave, performed miraculous feats of aviation which would have made Waldo Pepper envious
and violated the laws of physics all in one day. Now he is serving another purpose for his string
pullers in the deep state by torpedoing Trump.
As Conan-Doyle wrote, "Whenever you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth."
Office fires, nor jet fuel, nor building collapses or aircraft impacts will not cause hundreds
of thousands of tons of structural steel and concrete to undergo molecular dissociation and turn
into dust clouds. They generally do not cause the metal components of vehicles in the vicinity
to be destroyed while their non-metallic components remain intact. Neither will conventional explosives
or even nano-thermite. The destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2 and the core of WTC 6 was not caused by
any of these things alone. WTC 7 may have been a case of conventional controlled demolition, but
the idea that it experienced universal failure and collapsed into its footprint because of "raging
fires" is too stupid for words.
It is O'Brien holding up the three fingers and torturing Winston into seeing two – except that
a good part of our public accepts their masters' voice willingly and enthusiastically, even today
in 2017.
The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11
cult include the following:
Not sure anyone would accuse Philip Giraldi (former counter-terrorism specialist and military
intelligence officer of the CIA) of someone who is "within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult":
If there had been such a gathering, I would imagine that the Washington Post would have
found out about it on the next day as intelligence officers are gregarious and like to talk.
This has been my principal problem with the debate in some quarters about the 9/11 Commission.
Their report did indeed miss many important angles in order to protect certain governmental
interests, but if there had been a genuine conspiracy involving what must have been hundreds
of people to demolish the Twin Towers with explosives, it surely would have leaked long ago
.
Inquiry makes it sound like an actual investigation. WTF could the FBI do in a couple of days.
Just look at the IPs recorded in the computer logs. Well, fuckwads and assorted sheeple, those
IP numbers prove FUCK ALL.
The thinking people in USA KNOW Russia had nothing
to do with our elections! We hated Clinton and would
have voted for an alligator if that was the only
opponent to Clinton!
The USA opened this can of works with Flame and Stixnet. Now it needs to face consequences of its
reckless actions.
Both Hillary staff and DNC staff behaves like complete idiots, taking into account the level of
mayhem the USA caused in other countries, including Russia. Blowback eventually came and bite their
ass. In addition Hillary "private" staff was definitely incompetent.
Notable quotes:
"... The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96: ..."
Incessantly reporting 24/7 on whether the Russians did it or not doesn't take into account the
critical failure by a leading political party of the "free world" – a nation supposedly at the forefront
of technology – to appropriately secure their digital communications along with those of a potential
POTUS.
This is a question of how US government, or a potential one, works, and how it should work in
the future.
The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's
doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96:
"... "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was. ..."
"... The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia. ..."
"... "In the main it was not true," Comey said. ..."
Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly warned Thursday that news reports based on leaks of classified
information pertaining to the Russia investigation have been consistently wrong.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Community, Comey said stories about Russia that are
based on classified leaks have been a persistent problem for the FBI because news organizations have
often received bad information.
"There have been many, many stories based on - well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are
dead wrong," Comey said.
"Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential
campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials
in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times
wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was.
The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number
of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence
officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia.
"But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because
of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian
president, Vladimir V. Putin," the Times wrote.
"In the main it was not true," Comey said.
But in an
analysis of Comey's comments on Thursday evening, the Times argued that sources cited in the
Feb. 14 article have vouched for the account put forth, though the newspaper's reporters were not
able to contact them immediately after Comey's testimony.
The analysis raises the possibility that Comey could have been disputing the article's characterization
of Russian intelligence officials.
Another possibility, according to the Times, is that Comey may have disputed with the newspaper's
description of the evidence as "phone records and intercepted calls."
Comey said incorrect reports are frustrating because the FBI's policy is not to comment on the
media's coverage of its investigations.
"The challenge - and I'm not picking on reporters - about writing stories about classified information,
is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who actually
know what's going on are not talking about it," Comey said. "We don't call the press and say, 'Hey,
you got that thing wrong.' "
Trump has repeatedly railed against "fake news" and the media's reliance on unnamed sources.
CNN this week had to issue a correction after it reported that Comey would testify that he never
told Trump that he wasn't the target of an investigation.
"... Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump. ..."
"... Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today. ..."
UPDATE 12:50 P.M. As the public part of the hearing adjourned, and Comey has completely vindicated
Trump ahead of a later closed session hearing where he and senators are likely to discuss classified
information he could not bring up during the televised hearing, the whole thing turned out exactly
like Breitbart News Network told you it would: A giant nothing-burger.
Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has
leaked information designed to harm President Trump.
Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials
may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about
today.
UPDATE 12:37 P.M. Their hopes and dreams dashed by Comey completely vindicating Trump in this open
hearing, and instead implicating ex-Obama administration officials like Loretta Lynch–and implicating
himself as an anti-Trump leaker with a network through which he has leaked damaging information against
the president–the left and media are pinning everything on a last ditch line of questioning from
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).
This line of questioning from
@SenKamalaHarris regarding the Attorney General is extraordinarily important – not to be overlooked
Don't tell Max Boot about the black helicopters coming for him. Seriously. "KREMLINGATE"? What
is wrong with these people? Anyway, another wonderfully fantastic flashback of this Never Trumper
from when Comey was fired in May:
Prediction: If Democrats take control of Congress in 2018, the firing of Comey will form one
of the articles of impeachment.
- Max Boot (@MaxBoot)
Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from
him.
Comey also just testified that he did not believe that Lynch could "credibly deny" the Hillary
Clinton email scandal investigation, and that she had a serious conflict of interest. He also testified
in exchange with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Majority Whip, that it is possible a special
prosecutor was needed for the email scandal. He said he considered calling for appointing a special
counsel in the scandal, but decided against it.
UPDATE 12:08 P.M. Oh my. Now confirmed leaker James Comey's leak network has been outed, or at
least part of it has:
Only in Washington: Someone nursing a pint of beer shouts out to a crowded bar: "Daniel Richman
of Columbia" https://t.co/hNXVbfBe8r
So the collusion involves former FBI director, mainstream media, and the left-wing academy
to bring down the elected president
#ComeyHearing https://t.co/sVWKpajWw9
UPDATE 12:05 P.M. There are now serious questions being raised as to whether Loretta Lynch, the
former Attorney General from the Obama administration, will be subpoenaed to testify after this hearing
where Comey has implicated her.
Legit question: is Loretta Lynch going to be subpoenaed as a result of this testimony?
Meanwhile, Comey's admission he is a leaker serious hurts him. Jonathan Turley of George Washington
University Law School makes the case Comey may be in serious trouble:
Comey admits that he leaked the internal memo through a Columbia law professor in order to
force Special Counsel. Yet, that raises questions
UPDATE 12:01 P.M. From our RNC friends, here's video of Sen. Rubio crushing another leftist media
narrative during his questioning of Comey.
Basically, Comey was so concerned about President Trump's conversations with him that he alerted
exactly nobody who could do anything about it. In other words, this whole thing is a giant nothing-burger.
Except for Comey implicating himself as a leaker.
UPDATE 11:58 A.M. Comey is in big trouble after this hearing. He admitted he's a leaker, and has
an actual network through which he leaks information to the press. In addition, he withheld from
leaking information that would have vindicated President Trump weeks ago. White House social media
director Dan Scavino captures it clearly and concisely on Twitter:
President Trump still has yet to Tweet, so no free drinks yet here at Union Pub. Looks like the
owners here made a smart decision since this place is standing room only right now.
UPDATE 11:54 A.M. Oh, man, this keeps getting better and better. Comey just shredded the Democrats
AND now the fake news media.
Oh Boy. Comey says there have been many many stories based on classified information about
Russia that are just "dead wrong"
I wonder if any of the media outlets that have printed repeated stories on these matters will
check their reporting again or correct it if they're wrong. Not holding my breath.
UPDATE 11:50 A.M. Comey has emerged throughout this hearing before the American people looking
very much like a drama queen. One of the more memorable lines is when he says when Trump called him
to ask him if he was free for dinner, he had to break a date with his wife.
Comey says Trump called him at his desk. "Free for dinner tonight?"
"I said yessir I had to call my wife and break a date with her."
Meanwhile, even CNN's Jim Acosta–a vehemently anti-Trump media figure in the heart of the opposition
party's mothership CNN–is joining in on the anti-Comey fun.
Giving info to media "like feeding seagulls at the beach?" Fact check: True.
UPDATE 11:48 A.M. The leaky Capitol Hill GOP swamp aides are attacking Trump, despite the fact
Comey has vindicated the president and implicated himself in potentially illegal leaks.
Senate R aide: Holding nose and defending Trump is taking a lot out of these GOP senators -
and they will demand some kind of repayment
The fact that Swamp Creatures on the "Republican" side on Capitol Hill are throwing shade on their
own president, and party, as the GOP and Trump likely emerge from today's masquerade mostly out of
the woods is simply incredible but unsurprising. Swamp Things are going to Swamp.
UPDATE 11:45 A.M. Comey's open admission he orchestrated a potentially illegal leak puts him in
serious potential trouble, the New York Times people note. That's the story folks. He vindicated
Trump, and implicated himself. Wow, what a day.
Can't remember the last time someone in DC openly acknowledged orchestrating a leak - and without
any senator having even asked.
UPDATE 11:39 A.M. CNN's Dan Merica says that President Trump's personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz will
make a statement at the end of Comey's public testimony.
Marc Kasowitz, Trump's lawyer outside the White House, will make a statement at the end of
James Comey's Senate testimony
UPDATE 11:35 A.M. As Comey continues vindicating Trump and throwing Democrats like Lynch, Obama,
and Clinton under the bus–presumably accidentally–the Washington, D.C., daydrinking party scene is
in full swing:
Her "homey" James Comey, meanwhile, has actually admitted he is a leaker.
Flag: Comey says he had a friend of his leak the content of his memo to a reporter to hopefully
prompt the appointment of a special counsel.
pic.twitter.com/qICnQhI2te
UPDATE 11:32 A.M. While obstruction is now off the table for Trump, as Breitbart's Joel Pollak
detailed, Breitbart's John Hayward notes that obstruction is back on the table for several leading
officials from now former President Barack Obama's administration. Hayward says Congress needs to
investigate Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General, as well as Obama and former Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton–the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee–for obstruction of justice.
Big takeaway from the Comey hearing: urgent need to investigate Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama,
and Hillary Clinton for obstruction
UPDATE 11:29 A.M. Our very own Joel Pollak is out with another bombshell piece detailing how this
hearing has shattered the media's and the Democrats' efforts to taint President Trump with "obstruction
of justice."
"Democrats have hinged their hopes for impeachment - and reversing the 2016 elections - on the
idea that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That case has now been smashed beyond repair,"
Pollak writes, pointing to a Comey exchange with Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID).
Comey deflated under Loretta Lynch pressure and wrapped the investigation of favorable to
Hillary terms. He assigned close to Hillary Person to lead the investigation, which suggest
cover up from the very beginning of the investigation. Then he has the second thought and
issued his famous statement, in which he usurped the role of justice Department official.
Comey
discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation
of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should
be described.
"At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to
call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said.
Comey added that Lynch's
infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the campaign was the reason he decided to make
a statement when the decision was made not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
"In a ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something
separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice
Department," Comey said.
So far I have had a cursory look on it - a few minutes of turning the pages. It doesn't look
like a serious professional study, more like a light writing (albeit with numerous booknotes),
and the author's focus seems to be on exposing the cases where the U.S. misbehaved in the world
- so it shouldn't be critical of countries like Russia. The author cites journalists like Max
Blumenthal, Robert Perry, even Paul Craig Roberts, so I guess it
might
be an interesting
read. Perhaps I will read the book; not sure.
Published on 4 Jun 2017
As Hillary Clinton blames the Kremlin for her election loss, author and attorney Dan Kovalik argues
that anti-Russia sentiment is deeply embedded in the U.S. political establishment. Kovalik's new
book is "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia: How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify
Russia."
An analysis like Andrei P. Tsygankov's book was sorely
needed. However, I am not sure that Tsygankov will
fully reach with this text what he seemingly wanted to
attain - namely, an effective, noted and, above all,
consequential critique of US attitudes towards Russia
during the last decade. Tsygankov has, to be sure, done
a great deal of investigative work. He details many
episodes that illustrate well where US policy or
opinion makers have gone wrong. The book's chapters
deal with, among other topics, the Chechen wars,
democracy promotion, and energy policies. It is also
important that this interpretation comes from a
Russia-born political scientist who lives in the US and
knows American discourse and politics well.
Tsygankov's deep knowledge of both, Russian affairs
as well as camps and trends in US politics, adds
considerable value to this analysis.
Yet, already the title of the book indicates where
Tsygankov may be defeating his purpose. By way of
classifying most of US-American critique of Russia as
"Russophobia", Tsygankov goes, at least in terms of the
concepts and words that he uses to interpret these
phenomena, a bit too far. Tsygankov asserts that
Russophobia is a major intellectual and political trend
in US international thought and behaviour. He also
tries to make the reader believe that there exists a
broad coalition of political commentators and actors
that form an anti-Russian lobby in Washington.
It is true that there is a lot to be criticised and
improved in Western approaches towards post-Soviet
Russia - and towards the non-Western world, in general.
US behaviour vis-ŕ-vis, and American comments on,
Russia, for the last 20 years, have all too often been
characterized by incompetence and insensitivity
regarding the daunting challenges and far-reaching
consequences of the peculiarly post-Soviet political,
cultural and economic transformation. Often,
Russian-American relations have been hampered by plain
inattention among US decision and opinion makers - a
stunning phenomenon in view of the fact that Russia has
kept being and will remain a nuclear superpower, for
decades to come.
The hundreds of stupidities that have been uttered
on, and dozens of mistakes in US policies towards,
Russia needed to be chronicled and deconstructed.
Partly, Tsygankov has done that here with due effort,
interesting results and some interpretative success.
Yet, Tsygankov does not only talk about failures and
omissions regarding Russia. He also speaks of enemies
of the Russian state in the US, and their supposed
alliances as well various dealings.
Certainly, there is the occasional Russophobe in
Washington and elsewhere, in the Western world. Among
such personage, there are even some who are indeed
engaged in an anti-Russian political lobbying of sorts.
However, the circle of activists who truly deserve
to be called "Russophobes" largely contains immigrants
from the inner or outer Soviet/Russian empire. These
are people who have their own reasons to be distrustful
of, or even hostile towards, Russia. After the rise of
Vladimir Putin and the Russian-Georgian War, many of
them, I suspect, feel that they have always been right,
in their anti-Russian prejudices. In any way, this is a
relatively small group of people who are more
interested in the past and worried about the future of
their newly independent nation-states than they are
concerned about the actual fate of Russia herself.
Among those who are interested in Russia there are
many, as Tsygankov aptly documents, who have recently
been criticizing the Russian leadership harshly.
Some of them have, in doing so, exerted influence on
Western governments and public opinion. And partly such
critique was, indeed, unjustified, unbalanced or/and
counterproductive.
But is that enough to assert that there is an
"anti-Russian lobby"? What would such a lobby gain from
spoiling US-Russian relationships? Who pays these
lobbyists, and for what? Who, apart from a few
backward-looking East European émigrés, is sufficiently
interested in a new fundamental Russian-Western
confrontation so as to conduct the allegedly concerted
anti-Russian campaigns that Tsygankov appears to be
discovering, in his book?
Is not this CIA or Mossad trying to implicate Russians? why nobody asks relevant
questions? Russia is way too convenient bogeyman to exclude such a possibility. Russians were
under the gun already in 2016. In such circumstances they would prefer to lie low, not to do such
stupid things.
June 7, 2017 An NSA document purporting to show Russian military hacker attempts to access a
Florida company which makes voter registration software is sent anonymously to
The Intercept . A low-level NSA contractor, Reality Winner, above, is arrested almost immediately.
What's wrong with this picture? A lot.
Who Benefits?
Start with the question of who benefits – cui bono – same as detectives do when assessing
a crime.
Trump looks bad as another trickle of information comes out connecting something Russian to something
2016 election. Intelligence community (IC) looks like they are onto something, a day or so before
ousted FBI Director James Comey testifies before Congress on related matters. The Intercept looks
like it contributed to burning a source. Which potential leaker is going to them in the future? If
potential leakers are made to think twice, another win for the IC. The FBI made an arrest right away,
nearly simultaneous to the publication, with the formal charges coming barely an hour after The Intercept
published. The bust is sure thing according to the very publicly released information. No Ed Snowden
hiding out in Russia this time. IC looks good here. More evidence is now in the public domain that
the Russians are after our election process. Seems as if the IC has been right all along.
What Happened is Curious and Curiouser
Now let's look at what we know so far about how this happened.
A 25-year-old improbably-named Reality Winner leaves behind a trail long and wide on social media
of anti-Trump stuff, including proclaiming herself a member of The Resistance. Never mind, she takes
her Top Secret clearance with her out of the Air Force (she had been
stationed with the military's 94th Intelligence Squadron out of Fort Meade, Maryland, co-located
with the NSA's headquarters) and scores a job with an NSA contractor. Despite the lessons of too-much-access
the Snowden episode should have taught the NSA, Winner apparently enjoys all sorts of classified
documents – her Air Force expertise was in Afghan matters, so it is unclear why she would have access
to info on Russia hacking of U.S. domestic companies.
Within only about 90 days of starting her new job, she prints out the one (and only one apparently,
why not more?) document in question and mails it to The Intercept. She also uses her work computer
inside an NSA facility to write to the Intercept
twice about this same time.
Winner has a clearance. She was trained as a Dari, Pashto, and Farsi linguist by the Air Force.
She knows how classified stuff works. She has been told repeatedly, as all persons with a clearance
are, that her computer, email, printing, and phone are monitored. She mailed the document from Augusta,
Georgia, the city where she lives and where the NSA facility is located. She practiced no tradecraft,
did nothing to hide her actions and many things to call attention to them. It is very, very unclear
why she took the actions she did under those circumstances.
The Document
The Intercept meanwhile drops by their friendly neighborhood NSA contact and shows them the document.
NSA very publicly confirms the veracity of the document (unusual in itself, officially the Snowden
and Manning documents remain unconfirmed) and then makes sure the
open-court
document filed is not sealed and includes the information on how the spooks know the leaked doc
was printed inside the NSA facility. Winner went on to make a full confession to the FBI. The upshot?
This document is not a plant. The NSA wants you to very much know it is real. The Russians
certainly are messing with our election.
But funny thing. While the leaked NSA document seems to be a big deal, at least to the general
public, it sort of isn't. It shows one piece of analysis suggesting but not confirming the GRU, Russian
military intelligence, tried to steal some credentials and gain access to a private
company . No US sources and methods, or raw technical intel, are revealed, the crown jewel stuff.
There is no evidence the hack accomplished anything at all, never mind anything nefarious. The hack
took place months ago and ran its course, meaning the Russian operation was already dead. The Russians
were running a run-of-the-mill spearfishing attack, potentially effective, but nothing especially
sophisticated. You get similar stuff all the time trying to harvest your credit card information.
The leaked document looks like a big deal but isn't.
Another issue. The Intercept has a lot of very smart people working for it, people with real-world
intelligence and tradecraft experience. People who know about
microdot encoding on printed documents, one of the tells here, and people who know they don't
show their whole hand when asking the NSA for a comment. The Intercept journalist volunteered to
an NSA contracting company that the envelope received was
postmarked to Augusta, where Winner lived and worked. Like Reality Winner and her own security
training, it is very, very unclear why the Intercept took the actions it did under those circumstances.
So For Now
So, look, what we know about this story may represent .01% of the whole picture, and that tiny
sliver of visible information is only what the government has chosen to reveal. And sometimes a coincidence
is just a coincidence. Sometimes smart people make dumb mistakes.
But that's not the way you place your bets, especially when dealing with the IC who are good at
these kinds of games. At this very early stage I'm going to say there are too many coincidences and
too many mistakes to simple shrug it all off. Too many of the benefits in this have accrued on the
side of the IC than is typical when a real whistleblower shares classified documents with a journalist.
If it frightens you that I invoke the question of the Deep State using journalists to smear the
President, just forget I said anything. But if we're willing to believe the Russians somehow successfully
manipulated our entire society to elect their favored candidate, then we can at least ask a few questions.
Otherwise, if anyone hears Winner's lawyer use the word "patsy," let me know, OK?
BONUS: Matt Cole, one of The Intercept journalists credited to this story, was also involved in
the
outing of source CIA officer John Kiriakou in connection with CIA torture claims. Small world!
"... I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT. ..."
"... The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis. ..."
"... Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her. ..."
"... When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents. ..."
Lots of people, including myself, created FB accounts solely to post material related to the
2016 Democratic Primary and the election. I have just under 5,000 friends on FB, all of whom are
"friends in Bernie."
I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues,
ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence,
to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya
and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi
regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as
her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises
to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation).
These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT.
The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was
a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the
actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks
on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted
as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis.
It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for
a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay
to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not
to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime).
Funny you should mention. I responded to yet another episode of Russian hysteria yesterday
and was immediately attacked by a Clinton cultist. Understand, this woman had no idea who I am
and clearly didn't bother to find out. I said something against St. Hillary, and was therefore
the enemy. Of course, the basis of her attack was that my sources of information were all "fake
news."
Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I
had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to
what the media said about her.
When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist
then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't
know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard
response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents.
Megyn Kelly:
But
the other side says is it was only 70,000 votes that won
Trump
the election, and therefore influencing 70,000 people might not have been that hard.
Vladimir Putin:
The Constitution of the United States and the electoral legislation are structured
in such a way that more electors can vote for a candidate who is backed by fewer
voters. And such situations do occur in the history of the United States. True, isn't
it?
Therefore, if we were
to discuss some kind of political and social justice, then probably that electoral
legislation needs to be changed and bring a situation where the head of state would
be elected by direct secret ballot and so there will be direct tabulation of votes
that can be easily monitored. That's all there is to it. And there will be no need
for those who have lost the elections to point fingers and blame their troubles
on anybody.
Now, if we turn this page
over, I will tell you something that you most likely know about. I don't want
to offend anyone, but the United States, everywhere, all over the world, is actively
interfering in electoral campaigns in other countries. Is this really news to you?
Just talk to people but
in such a way (to the extent it is possible for you) so as to convince them that
you're not going to make it public. Point your finger to any spot on the world's map,
everywhere you'll hear complaints that American officials interfere in their
political domestic processes.
Therefore, if someone,
and I am not saying that it's us (we did not interfere), if anybody does influence
in some way or attempts to influence or somehow participates in these processes, then
the United States has nothing to be offended by. Who is talking? Who is taking
offense that we are interfering? You yourselves interfere all the time.
Megyn Kelly:
That
sounds like a justification.
Vladimir Putin:
It
does not sound like justification. It sounds like a statement of fact. Each action
invites appropriate counteraction, but, again, we don't need to do that because I did
not tell you this without a reason, both you personally and other members
of the media, recently I was in France and I said the same things.
Presidents come and go,
and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not
change. So by and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States.
We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even if we
wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere.
Vladimir Putin:
It's
just that the French journalists asked me about those hackers, and just like I told
them, I can tell you, that hackers may be anywhere. They may be in Russia, in Asia,
in America, in Latin America. There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine
such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient
for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did.
And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening?
I can. Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy.
There is a theory that
Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this
theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's
context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special
services than to organise some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making
a reference to Russia in the process. Now, the candidate for the Democratic Party, is
this candidate universally beloved in the United States? Was it such a popular
person? That candidate, too, had political opponents and rivals.
... ... ...
Megyn Kelly:
Aren't
you interested?
Vladimir
Putin:
No. Because if there had been something meaningful he would have made
a report to the minister, and the minister would have made a report to me. There
weren't even any reports. Just every day, routine work that doesn't mean anything
that may not even have any prospects.
It's just that someone
decided to find fault with it and, you know, select it as a line of attack against
the current President. This isn't for us to get into, these are your domestic
political squabbles. So you deal with them. Nothing to talk about.
There was not even
a specific discussion of sanctions or something else. I just find it amazing how you
created a sensation where there wasn't anything at all. And proceeded to turn that
sensation into a tool for fighting the sitting president. You know, you're just very
resourceful people there, well done, probably your lives there are boring.
... ... ....
I almost did not talk to him. I said hello, we sat next to each other, then I said goodbye
and left. This sums up my entire acquaintanceship with Mr Flynn. If Mr Flynn and I had this kind
of interaction, while you and I, we have spent an entire day together, and Mr Flynn was fired
from his job, you then should be arrested and put in jail.
... ... ...
Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now?
The law enforcement agencies and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little
pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms of democracy
in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect
in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it
all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live?
Emergence of cyber attack charge of a perfect false flag operation.
Neocons and Clinton wing of Democratic Party (DemoRats) are trying to add to the momentum of rising
negativity about Trump in US public opinion to make impeaching Trump possible.
So we go from "they hacked us" to "they tried to hack us"? Not quite the same accusation. Next
it will go from "It was the Russian government" to "it was someone using an IP from Russia"...
Re "If you look at the actual public evidence, that's all we've got." The US has an IP range,
time of day. IP ranges always point back to just a nation. Government workers always work 9 to
5 shifts in their own nation's time zones too.
If you look at the actual public evidence, that's all we've got.
Exactly. The document in question takes a quite conclusive tone on the matter, but does not
divulge any raw intelligence data or the methods used to assess that data.
Now, either the NSA personnel who produced this document are a hell of lot less smart than
you are, or the document is a fake, or there is private information that the rest of
us don't have.
The report doesn't say "using an IP address from Russia" -- it says it was from the Russian
Military. I don't think the NSA would get the two confused. Also, the report says that at least
one email account was probably compromised ("probably" being intel-speak for "very high confidence").
With a compromised email account, further phishing attacks are much more likely to be successful.
So we don't know the extent of the hacking results (at least from this one report), but it was
not a "attempt to hack" but a "successful hack" with unknown-as-yet damage.
This is the second time Hillary failed to become "the inevitable president". Did Russia sabotage
her plans last time? (Oh, Obama won the primaries. Hillary made sure she won those this time.)
Did Russia tell Hillary to rig the primaries to freeze our Sanders?
Did Russia get the DNC to provide Hillary the debate questions in advance? (She still did
terrible anyway.)
Did Russia make Hillary collapse on their way to their car?
Did Russia encourage Bill to pardon Marc Rich, the billionaire donor to the Clinton campaign
and the Clinton Foundation?
Did Russia tell Hillary to be so confident that she could ignore the (previously Democratic)
rust belt states in her campaign?
Did Russia tell Hillary to lie about dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia?
Did Russia tell Hillary, when she was a working attorney, to get a rapist a sweet plea
deal and then laugh when questioned about it?
Did Russia tell Hillary to call Bill sexual accusers "bimbos"?
Did Russia tell Hillary to say to the bankers that she would ring China with defensive
missiles?
Did Russia tell Hillary to have Huma Aberdeen as her aide, assistant editor of a publication
that believes in Muslim Sharia Law?
Did Russia tell Hillary to say she would make a no-fly zone in Syria when Russia was already
in Syria?
Did Russia tell Hillary to laugh demonically about "came, saw, and kill" Kaddafi?
Did Russia tell Hillary to take bribes on numerous occasions in the form of speaking fees?
Did Russia tell Hillary to use the personal unsecured server?
Did Russia tell Hillary to delete emails that were subpoenaed?
Did Russia tell Hillary to have a corrupt charity?
Did Russia tell Hillary to call 31 million voters deplorable irredeemable racist sexist
homophobic bigots?
Did Russia murder Seth Rich, DNC's Director of Voter Enhancement? He was the Sanders supporter
who was shot 4 times while on the ground in a "botched robbery" in which nothing was taken.
Did Russia get the Clintons to accept a bribe on the Uranium One deal? Well, yes, they
did do that one.
Soviet "military intelligence" who normally did military spying tried to run a spy in the UK
in the 1970's due to an accident of first contact. It ended in failure as the Soviet staff did
not have the decades of skill to work long term with a person in the UK and all the emotional
issues that result.
The write up of Russia/the Soviet Union ever using "military intelligence" in the West for
activity seems more of an older US fantasy than reality. Russia knows what its "military intelligence"
can do and should not do.
It learned that by losing one of its more productive spies in the UK in the 1970's. Losing
a good spy does not get "military intelligence" a lot of other direct attempts at spying again.
Why would the US be talking about one of the one groups in Russia that would not be used for
spying in the West? Every other spy agency in the world would notice that glaring mistake too
and be wondering why the most simple lack of understanding of Russian's intelligence structure
would be allowed to be presented as "news"? The report does not "show the underlying "raw" intelligence
on which the analysis is based". "cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion" Read down further
and find the part about "not involved in vote tallying"
From not changing votes what ever happened did not even work well "unknown whether" .. "and what potential data from the victim could have been exfiltrated" So some "spear-phishing"
did not change the votes and did not seem to even get many other results. Thats using some "military
intelligence". The quality of the effort was ""medium sophistication," one that "practically any
hacker can pull off."" Note the use of the term "hacker". "The actual voting machines aren't going
to be networked" Finally any issues got talked about as been the everyday issues of "between the
setup of the computers and the poll workers using them."
"While the document provides a rare window into the NSAâ(TM)s understanding of the mechanics
of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying âoerawâ intelligence on which the analysis
is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing
too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive."
If one reads other articles by the Intercept, one finds that Glenn Greenwald, who works as
editor at the Intercept and helped publicize the Snowden leaks, is of the informed opinion that
Russia did not manipulate the US election, and that the whole claim was manufactured by the US
intelligence, and that both political sides saw it easier to treat this well-established lie as
if it was true than to publicly confront it.
Just look for the articles by Glenn Greenwald in Intercept. He has stated this explicitly a
good time before Putin said the same thing (but in Putin's mouth, it was subtle pressure against
the US intelligence community to stop attacking Russia).
This seems like a lot of crying and hang wringing over standard operating procedures.
Did Russia try to penetrate our voting systems? Probably.
Did the US plant stuxnet in Iranian nuke plants? Probably Did the US hack North Korean missile
tests? Probably Did the US capture German and UK government communications? Yes Does the US try
to penetrate Russian systems and generally hack every government and military computer on the
planet 24x7? YES!
This is the way the world works, the way it has ALWAYS worked. It is naive and dangerous to
think otherwise.
Our best response is to harden our systems and go on with life. Complete nothing burger.
The Rush Limbaugh theorem states that the media isn't an arm of the Democrat Party, rather,
that the Democrat Party is an arm of the media. Think about it, which side is more organized and
sends a cohesive voice nightly or hourly?
Look, I don't think any honest person can deny the Russians meddled in the election. The
bigger question is, did they throw the American election?
That is hard (impossible?) to answer conclusively, but they likely did not. Clinton lost the
election all by herself, IMHO.
The problem is that a) it appears that Russia did indeed meddle in US elections and b) there's
an active investigation about collusion between the Trump administration and Russian officials.
That is the story here.
The problem is that results like 2016 don't have any single cause. There are
many things that had they been different could have changed the outcome.
Blame isn't like a hot potato: there's plenty for everyone. Clinton has her share of the blame.
Her weak and passive messaging, and her over-reliance on dubious analytics in the face of clear
field intelligence were both mistakes. Absent either of them and she would have won -- it was
only a matter of swinging 100,000 strategically placed votes, about 1/100th of 1% of the votes
cast.
This doesn't mean other things didn't cause her loss too, but the bottom line was that she
was facing Donald Trump, a boorish reality TV clown and easily the stupidest and most ignorant
man ever to win the presidency. She should have blown the doors of the election far beyond the
reach of a few unlucky breaks or marginal meddling to matter.
Remember when the CIA planted logic flaws in some pipeline management software because they
knew the Soviets would steal it? This led to the gigantic explosion of a Siberian pipeline:
"... The "Macron attack" was very curious. Gigabytes of campaign emails were released by "the hackers" just hours before a media silence period before the election. The campaign immediately found fakes with Cyrillic markings and blamed "Russia". None of the released emails contained anything that was even remotely scandalous. It was likely a planned Public Relations stunt, not a cyber attack. ..."
"... That NYT report was complete nonsense. The "cybersecurity firm" it quoted was peddling snake oil. Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. Likewise APT's, "Advanced Persistent Threats", are not "groups" but collections of methods that can be copied and re-used by anyone. After their first occurrence "in the wild" they are no longer attributable. ..."
"... The head of the French government's cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from President Emmanuel Macron's election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious Russian hacking group behind the attack. ..."
"... In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard said the Macron campaign hack "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone." ..."
"... Poupard says the attack's simplicity "means that we can imagine that it was a person who did this alone. They could be in any country." ..."
"... of the current 15 million plus followers of @HillaryClinton only 48%, or 7,605,960, are real and 8,108,833 fake. ..."
"... For the @realDonaldTrump account Twitter Audit ..."
"... Funny how western MSM totally block these news. But thats the propaganda we know so well from the same culprits. Clinton is also obviously mentally ill, spreading all these conspiracy theories and fake news against Russia and Trump and the equally mentally ill MSM is giving her all the space. ..."
"... Reading this is more surprising "None of the released emails contained anything that was even remotely scandalous." That has been the line of the Fr media since AFTER the election. In fact; there are orders for amphetamines paid in bitcoins and a possible allusion to a cocaine order. How can those emails be considered fakes when the rest is not? Some media are now using the mails related to the financial system of the newly set Macron party as genuine, so how do they sort them out? ..."
"... It is a long held opinion of mine, based on what I observe over a relatively long life, that most politicians who seek high levels of power are driven by needs and desires which quite often include sociopathic needs. Many successful politicians often display other pathological tendencies (lying, misleading, manipulation of others, self-glorification, egotism and deep insecurities as well as pursuit of wealth and public acclaim). It seems politics attracts people of this kind and the atmosphere exaggerates and encourages them. ..."
"... One other tendency also seems to stand out: attributing all manner of base and ugly intentions on others without real proof. This, I believe is founded on the real understanding of the accuser that he or she would do just that if given the chance. Look into your own heart and project onto others what you find there. It is fair to fear the worst of others but it can be catastrophic when those fears are acted upon as if the other party were guilty. Sort of, "Shoot first and ask questions later." Not the kind of neighbhour any rational person would want. Yet we choose them to lead. ..."
"... It would be easy to place fakes if I understand the US hacking software that wikileaks published correctly. ..."
"... Russia has a very real right wing populist movement of his own, and it is this movement that supports world wide populism including Trump . Putin calls them "patriotic hackers" and puts some distance between the Russian state and these activities (same as US think tanks are not the US state), but they get encouraged and used by the Russian state when needed like in Ukraine. ..."
"... It is an uneasy alliance as they are a very real threat to the Russian state itself . ..."
"... The "West" does not mind supporting Navalny in Russia who is a right wing populist himself. ..."
"... Interestingly, Clinton's backers in the legacy media are growing tired of her "not my fault" rant. ..."
"... A blackout shortly before elections makes sense - otherwise you do politics by rumour. No organisation is capable of deciding what is fake and what not with megabytes of emails. To put a researcher to work on it would still not solve it. So yes, Macron campaign statement "there are fakes in it" was preemptive. To hack stuff and trust someone will read it ...., well you can always hope. ..."
"... i am so tired of this 'russia bogeyman' thing the msm has going... i am even more tired of hearing about hillary clinton.. what a hopeless person.. ..."
"... bombing the shit out of other countries and climate control just don't go hand in hand... wonder when the puppets in europe, or the west actually recongize what a lying decietful game they are playing with people of climate control... oh yeah and walmart needs more people on the planet to generate more sales of plastic products from china.. and the beat goes on... ..."
"... Clinton does not have a choice at this point b but to take shrill to new levels. She herself is a war criminal and she may live to be prosecuted for such. The party she represents is corrupt to the core and it is in defense mode as well over its facade of populism...who is really behind the Seth Rich murder? How fast can the Merry-Go-Round spin before big parts start flying off? I think we are about to see. AtaBrit | Jun 2, 2017 3:24:21 PM | 25 @jfl | 8 Excellent link. Cheers. There has been a palpable shift in global dynamics since Trump's tour. No question about it. I am optimistic. xor | Jun 2, 2017 3:33:58 PM | 26 Hillary Clinton really is a disgusting critter. The presstitute media bias during the election campaign probably never has been so much in favor of one person. Even Google and Facebook participated in the public manipulation and still she keeps claiming it's the other way round. And then we're not even talking about DNC whistleblower Seth Rich who was set as an example. ..."
"... A part from Trend Micro joining the desinformation circus, it is and always delivered crappy software. ..."
"... Mediapart has looked at the leaks deducing what everybody guessed before - that "en marche" has been financed by the finance sector. I think the media is correct in not spreading rumour about Macron being gay (or dependent on drugs) - especially as there is no confirmation the leaks are untampered with. ..."
"... "Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. " ..."
"... b, your ignorance is pretty much on display, here. Cyber attacks take many different forms, among which are "phishing attacks". Try to get with the program ..."
The campaign of the French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron has been targeted by what appear
to be the same Russian operatives responsible for hacks of Democratic campaign officials before
last year's American presidential election, a cybersecurity firm warns in a new report.
...
Security researchers at the cybersecurity firm, Trend Micro, said that on March 15 they spotted
a hacking group they believe to be a Russian intelligence unit turn its weapons on Mr. Macron's
campaign -- sending emails to campaign officials and others with links to fake websites designed
to bait them into turning over passwords.
The group began registering several decoy internet addresses last month and as recently as
April 15, naming one onedrive-en-marche.fr and another mail-en-marche.fr to mimic the name of
Mr. Macron's political party, En Marche.
Those websites were registered to a block of web addresses that Trend Micro's researchers say
belong to the Russian intelligence unit they refer to as Pawn Storm, but is alternatively known
as Fancy Bear, APT 28 or the Sofacy Group. American and European intelligence agencies and American
private security researchers determined that the group was responsible for hacking the Democratic
National Committee last year.
The "Macron attack" was very curious. Gigabytes of campaign emails were released by "the hackers"
just hours before a media silence period before the election. The campaign immediately found fakes
with Cyrillic markings and blamed "Russia". None of the released emails contained anything that was
even remotely scandalous. It was likely a planned Public Relations stunt, not a cyber attack.
That NYT report was complete nonsense. The "cybersecurity firm" it quoted was peddling snake oil.
Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks.
They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They
are generally
not attributable at all. Likewise APT's, "Advanced Persistent Threats", are not "groups" but
collections of methods that can be copied and re-used by anyone. After their first occurrence "in
the wild" they are no longer attributable.
That isn't just me saying so. It is the head of France's cyber security
agency :
The head of the French government's cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from President
Emmanuel Macron's election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious Russian hacking group
behind the attack.
In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard said the
Macron campaign hack "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone."
He said they found no trace that the Russian hacking group known as APT28, blamed for other
attacks including on the U.S. presidential campaign, was responsible.
... Poupard says the attack's simplicity "means that we can imagine that it was a person who did this
alone. They could be in any country."
If, as the NYT claims, the authors of the attack on the Macron campaign were the same as in the
Clinton case then the Clinton campaign was likely not hacked by Russians.
That will of course not hinder Clinton to claim that "the Russians" were the ones who caused her
to lose the election. Clinton has by now
listed 24 guilty persons and organizations that caused her loss. She is not one of them.
In her latest Clinton
suggested that Russia or Trump were somehow behind a deliberate inflation of his numbers of twitter
followers through the use of bots, because [Trump's] European and Middle East tour had been a
flop.
'Who is behind driving up Trump's twitter followers by the millions?' she said.
'We know they're bots. Is it to make him look more popular than he is? Is it to influence others?
What is the message behind this?
The Clinton claim of "driving up Trump's twitter followers by the millions" is
fake news based on a hoax. Twitter Audit , where Clinton got the bot numbers from (h/t
@LutWitt ),
says that of the current
15 million plus followers of @HillaryClinton only 48%, or 7,605,960, are real and 8,108,833 fake.
For the @realDonaldTrump account Twitter Audit finds that 51%
of its 30 million+ followers are real. Not a great margin but still better than Clinton.
Clinton once famously said "
We came, we saw, he died" and
laughed (vid). She was talking about the murder of Muhammad Ghaddafi of Libya. She still does
not understand why people might be turned off by her vile character. She should take more time to
talk with
her daughter . Chelsea for one does not like gags about killing presidents:
Hillary Clinton lost it
(vid - see her off-the-meds rants on the election starting at 12:00 min). She needs a vacation
on some lone island and a long period of silences in some remote cloister. Anything she adds now
only reflects badly on her.
Funny how western MSM totally block these news. But thats the propaganda we know so well from
the same culprits. Clinton is also obviously mentally ill, spreading all these conspiracy theories
and fake news against Russia and Trump and the equally mentally ill MSM is giving her all the
space.
The Macron team has been brilliant in manipulating the French media. When the hack happened, every
single gov and non gov media was blaming the Ruskis, so that ppl voted Macron blindly thinking
great he is anti "popovs". But for a guy who believes himself the new De Gaulle, they'll be suprised...
Reading this is more surprising "None of the released emails contained anything that was even
remotely scandalous." That has been the line of the Fr media since AFTER the election. In fact;
there are orders for amphetamines paid in bitcoins and a possible allusion to a cocaine order.
How can those emails be considered fakes when the rest is not? Some media are now using the mails
related to the financial system of the newly set Macron party as genuine, so how do they sort
them out?
It is a long held opinion of mine, based on what I observe over a relatively long life, that most
politicians who seek high levels of power are driven by needs and desires which quite often include
sociopathic needs. Many successful politicians often display other pathological tendencies (lying,
misleading, manipulation of others, self-glorification, egotism and deep insecurities as well
as pursuit of wealth and public acclaim). It seems politics attracts people of this kind and the
atmosphere exaggerates and encourages them.
One other tendency also seems to stand out: attributing all manner of base and ugly intentions
on others without real proof. This, I believe is founded on the real understanding of the accuser
that he or she would do just that if given the chance. Look into your own heart and project onto
others what you find there. It is fair to fear the worst of others but it can be catastrophic
when those fears are acted upon as if the other party were guilty. Sort of, "Shoot first and ask
questions later." Not the kind of neighbhour any rational person would want. Yet we choose them
to lead.
It would be easy to place fakes if I understand the US hacking software that wikileaks published
correctly. Wikileaks kept a distance from the leak except an ambiguous comment by Assange. Since
that comment Wikileaks kept quiet.
The fact that it was published so late with nobody having the chance to look through probably
means there was nothing in it, just hoping that people might assume something to be there.
Russia has a very real right wing populist movement of his own, and it is this movement that
supports world wide populism including Trump . Putin calls them "patriotic hackers" and puts
some distance between the Russian state and these activities (same as US think tanks are not the
US state), but they get encouraged and used by the Russian state when needed like in Ukraine.
"The worst thing that had happened to the leaders of the rebellion was that in the end Mr.
Rutskoy and Mr. Khasbulatov, the leaders of this anti-Eltsin section, seeded control over the
opposition to radical nationalists, Antisemites and paramilitaries that in the end ruled Russia
in the White House and the Parliament building", he said.
These people captured the Moscow city hall, which is right across the White House, and attempted
to cease Russian television in Ostankino. The events made Boris Yeltsin convince the army to
go for the operation. On October 4, he ordered the army to storm the parliamentary building.
The leaders of the resistance were arrested.
The "West" does not mind
supporting Navalny in Russia who is a right wing populist himself.
Interestingly, Clinton's backers in the
legacy media are growing tired of her "not my fault" rant. The red line that she crossed was
her criticism of the DNC's data analytics. This spurred a raft of recriminations: Obama starved
the DNC; poor Wasserman-Schultz had nothing to work with. Hillary had the data that Michigan,
Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were in trouble and did nothing. The Democrats are a party in real trouble.
but the Bulgarian paper which gave the name of the so called FSB guy published some mails and
pointed to the metadata as possibly leading very easily to the xerox machines used to make some
of the pdf in the files there was a retweet by wl on the day after which was about a french guy
who had put a link to the place where the files were pubished and immediately received a lawyer's
letter anyway the frenchies don't read english, so it is not about the time between the publication
and the election, but for the perfect blackout in the msm and good reactions of the culprits (we've
planted fakes) and for the fact they are not interested in the internet outside french borders
A blackout shortly before elections makes sense - otherwise you do politics by rumour. No organisation
is capable of deciding what is fake and what not with megabytes of emails. To put a researcher
to work on it would still not solve it. So yes, Macron campaign statement "there are fakes in
it" was preemptive. To hack stuff and trust someone will read it ...., well you can always hope.
bombing the shit out of other countries and climate control just don't go hand in hand...
wonder when the puppets in europe, or the west actually recongize what a lying decietful game
they are playing with people of climate control... oh yeah and walmart needs more people on the
planet to generate more sales of plastic products from china.. and the beat goes on...
"Attorney Elizabeth Lee Beck's office received a call just before 5PM on Thursday from an individual
who was apparently using a 'robotic and genderless' voice changing device, sniffing around
with questions about the DNC lawsuit filed over cheating in the 2016 election. The suit - based
on documents released by hacker Guccifer 2.0, claims that the DNC colluded with Sec. Hillary
Clinton's campaign 'to perpetrate a fraud on the public.'
After a brief chat with the law firm's secretary, the 'mysterious' voice-masking caller
concluded the call with an 'Okey dokey.'
And whose number showed up when the law firm turned around and googled the number from the
caller ID? Why, who else but Debbie Wasserman Schultz' Aventura office!"
Police said the resident of the southern city of Ashkelon was the subject of a months-long
undercover investigation by police's Lahav 433 cyber unit and the FBI. It said in a statement
that the motive behind the bomb threats was unclear. Police said he is 19 years old, but several
Israeli media outlets reported him as 18.
Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said the suspect allegedly placed dozens of threatening
phone calls to public venues, synagogues and community buildings in the US, New Zealand and
Australia. He also placed a threat to Delta Airlines, causing a flight in February 2015 to
make an emergency landing.
"He's the guy who was behind the JCC threats," Rosenfeld said, referring to the dozens of
anonymous threats phoned in to Jewish community centers in the US over the past two months.
The hoax calls were widely regarded as acts of anti-Semitism. The threats led to criticism
of President Donald Trump's administration for not speaking out fast enough. Last month, the
White House denounced the threats and rejected "anti-Semitic and hateful threats in the strongest
terms."
...
Rosenfeld said the man used advanced technologies to mask the origin of his calls and communications
to synagogues, community buildings and public venues. He said police searched his house Thursday
morning and discovered antennas and satellite equipment.
Same tribe, same dirty tricks. They act as if all their crimes will never catch up to them.
Clinton does not have a choice at this point b but to take shrill to new levels. She herself
is a war criminal and she may live to be prosecuted for such. The party she represents is corrupt
to the core and it is in defense mode as well over its facade of populism...who is really behind
the Seth Rich murder?
How fast can the Merry-Go-Round spin before big parts start flying off? I think we are
about to see.
Hillary Clinton really is a disgusting critter. The presstitute media bias during the election
campaign probably never has been so much in favor of one person. Even Google and Facebook participated
in the public manipulation and still she keeps claiming it's the other way round. And then we're
not even talking about DNC whistleblower Seth Rich who was set as an example.
A part from Trend Micro joining the desinformation circus, it is and always delivered crappy
software. Even last year their products that are supposed to protect their users against virusses
and remote attacks in fact facilitated these: "PCs running Trend Micro's Windows antivirus
can be hijacked, infected with malware, or wiped clean by any website, thanks to a vulnerability
in the security software."
and "Because the password manager was so badly written, Ormandy found that a malicious script
could not only execute code remotely, it could also steal all passwords stored in the browser
using the flaws in Trend's software – even if they are encrypted."
My thoughts, too. After juggling so many schemes and dark deals over the years, the liar's
mind just cracks up. Pretty soon we'll be hearing about the skunkworks at area 51 targeting her
with death rays.
Her family should get her into a comfy retirement before she does more damage to herself and
others. If her daughter wants to pick up the baton, that's fine. I hope she runs for a democrat
seat.
HRC and Trump both work for the same team. Clinton is doing her part by creating the illusion
there are actually choices between the two parties with her constant whining about the election.
Trump is doing his part by distracting the sheep with weird behavior, while his corporate cronies
ready the American sheep for a good shearing.
re: Clinton does not have a choice at this point b but to take shrill to new levels. She herself
is a war criminal and she may live to be prosecuted for such.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 2, 2017 3:03:42 PM | 24.
I watched her May 31, 2017 live interview on youtube and my first thought was, "You clever
rascal, you are lying as fast as you can in order to taint the jury pool." No one ever said she
was stupid; evil, corrupt, soulless, yes. But never stupid.
In that bizarre Clinton clip, where she channels Julius Caesar (whom she still hopes to be)--clapping
her hands and shouting, "We came! We saw! He DIED!!!" on hearing the news that Gaddafi had been
raped and gutted with a bayonet by US-supported Al-Qaeda "rebels" whom she had visited in Libya
just a week before--the CBS reporter rhetorically asks her if Clinton thinks her own visit had
anything to do with this event. And Clinton amazingly answers: "It did." I had to play the clip
3 X to believe it. But that's what she actually said!
Hillary appears to be quiet depressed, still, and in denial but she really can't admit the truth
without completely pissing off her sponsors and future $500K a shot speaking gigs.
She can't come out and admit that the people didn't want her because she is a corrupt corporate/wall
st whore and war monger and that the Dem playbook of identity politics failed because neo-liberalism
has screwed over too many people. She can't admit that she has no personality and that she comes
across has cold, fake and contrived either.
She really has no choice but to keep pointing fingers elsewhere because admitting the truth
would be the end of her new career and the end of the political career she is pursuing for Chelsea.
The Green Climate Fund. $100 Billion a year to sit in the World Bank while a cartel decides
who to give/lend it to. Whatever the reason, Trump got this one right. I guess it depends on which
flavor of green you have in mind.
Clinton's orientation to more affluent voters produced a dramatic shift in the landscape of
American two-party politics in 2016. According to data from the American National Election
Survey (ANES), the Democratic Party won a majority of votes from the wealthiest 5 percent of
the white population for the first time since ANES began collecting data in 1948. Not only
did the Clinton campaign win amongst the wealthiest 5 percent of whites, she won by an overwhelming
margin, slightly greater than 10 percent. The Democrats won by wide margins among wealthier
sections of all racial groups.
On the other side, the poorest two-thirds of white voters supported the Republican candidate,
also for the first time in the ANES poll's 70-year history. The chart below shows the shift,
with the Republican margin of victory appearing higher on the Y-axis and the income percentile
groups listed from left to right on the X-axis, with the wealthiest 5 percent listed on the
right of each graph. The fact that the chart for 2016 has a downward trajectory highlights
the degree to which the Democratic Party has become the primary party of the affluent upper-middle
class.
the 'Democrats' in the usofa are like the 'Democrats' in thailand ... they've got the plutocrat
vote, and the wannabe plutocrat vote, sewed up. but that's not enough to get elected.
the thai 'Democrats' turn to coups to stay in power ... and now, so do the american Democrats.
starting off with a judicial coup, they hope.
will they go whole hog with tanks in the streets when that fails?
The Macron 'hack' was indeed curious. Maybe a sort of copy-cat-effort, like it has become fash
to hack pol e-mails? Odd - I haven't seen what the content is, is it just a lot of rubbish, is
the hack being ignored on purpose? Is all being covered up? Where is the material? Who is analysing
it? Sure I could hunt it up, the point is this all sank without much of a trace The media were
ordered not to publish:
Independent
Wikileaks - Assange - posted that they were looking at the stuff if they were real but did
not post anything after that. Mediapart has looked at the leaks deducing what everybody
guessed before - that "en marche" has been financed by the finance sector. I think the media is
correct in not spreading rumour about Macron being gay (or dependent on drugs) - especially as
there is no confirmation the leaks are untampered with.
"Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber
attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other
secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. "
b, your ignorance is pretty much on display, here. Cyber attacks take many different forms,
among which are "phishing attacks". Try to get with the program
1. cuts to the chase: the paris accord has no teeth
2. notes that russia has yet to sign the accord itself
3. points out that serious, heavy lifting is required to deal with climate change
4. throws the rump a lifesaver ... implies that russia and the us might work together on 3.
i always like to listen to putin. he actually says things.
i always like to listen to putin. he actually says things.
Posted by: jfl | Jun 3, 2017 8:54:38 PM | 51
That's true but, unlike Western leaders, Putin's most outstanding personal attribute is his
firm commitment to keeping quiet when he's got nothing to say.
Malcolm Turnbull is the perfect example... the longer his rambling speeches take to deliver,
the less solid info they contain.
It's a Neoliberal thing; long on verbosity - short on sane ideas.
"... The US Media try to manufacture a reality that pleases them (or, rather, their owners) on the basis of zero evidence. Putin laughs at this. His remarks are comical about the situation . and correct. America needs a doctor. Alternatively it needs to shoot itself in the head (the finance oligarchy) so it can grow a new one. ..."
"Hackers can be anywhere," Putin told Kelly. "They can be in Russia, in Asia even in America,
Latin America. They can even be hackers, by the way, in the United States, who very skillfully and
professionally, shifted the blame, as we say, on to Russia. Can you imagine something like that?
In the midst of a political battle. By some calculations it was convenient for them to release this
information, so they released it, citing Russia. Could you imagine something like that? I can."
The US Media try to manufacture a reality that pleases them (or, rather, their owners)
on the basis of zero evidence. Putin laughs at this. His remarks are comical about the situation
. and correct. America needs a doctor. Alternatively it needs to shoot itself in the head (the
finance oligarchy) so it can grow a new one.
WASHINGTON - A new president confronts an old war, one that bedeviled his predecessor. He is
caught between seasoned military commanders, who tell him that the road to victory is to pour
in more American troops, and skeptical political advisers, who argue that a major deployment is
a futile exercise that will leave him politically vulnerable.
Barack Obama in 2009. But also Donald J. Trump in 2017.
As Mr. Trump faces his most consequential decision yet as commander in chief - whether to send
thousands more troops to Afghanistan, where a truck bombing on Wednesday offered a brutal reminder
that the 16-year-old war is far from over - his administration is divided along familiar fault
lines.
The dispute pits two generals who had formative experiences in Afghanistan - Defense Secretary
Jim Mattis and the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster - against political aides,
led by the chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who fear that sending in more troops would be
a slippery slope toward nation-building.
"They are going to be faced with the same questions we were," said David Axelrod, a former
senior Obama adviser, who worried, during the 2009 debate, that the generals were boxing his boss
in. "How and when does this end? Or is it an open-ended commitment of American lives and resources?
What will the investment produce in the long run?"
The White House shelved the deliberations over Afghanistan three weeks ago, after an initial
Pentagon proposal to deploy up to 5,000 additional American troops ran into fierce resistance
from Mr. Bannon, an ardent nationalist, and other political advisers. In the West Wing, some aides
have taken to calling Afghanistan "McMaster's war."
Undeterred, General McMaster plans to bring the debate back to the front burner this coming
week, a senior administration official said. But as he does so, the Pentagon appears to be moving
toward a smaller recommendation, in which America's allies would supply half the new troops. Historically,
the United States has supplied about two-thirds of the soldiers in Afghanistan.
That proposal depends on nailing down commitments from NATO and other allies - a task that
former officials said had gotten harder after Mr. Trump's stormy visit to Europe, where he chided
allies for not paying their fair share of the alliance's upkeep and declined to reaffirm America's
commitment to mutual defense.
"Trump has made it harder, not easier, to follow the U.S. lead," said Douglas E. Lute, a former
ambassador to NATO who advised both Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush on Afghanistan. "Questioning
U.S. leadership makes it more difficult for the allies to send troops into harm's way." ...
... Mr. Bannon, who was a powerful force behind Mr. Trump's decision to leave the Paris climate
accord, has recovered some of his influence in the wake of that debate. Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump's
son-in-law and adviser, remains a crucial voice, despite his troubles over reported links to Russia.
Though he has not taken a position on troops, his aides say he views his role as making sure the
president gets genuine options.
Other officials may weigh in, too. John F. Kelly, the secretary of Homeland Security and another
retired general, holds weight with Mr. Trump. His son was killed in combat in Afghanistan. Secretary
of State Rex W. Tillerson may be exerting behind-the-scenes influence already. The debate over
Afghanistan abruptly slowed down after officials at the State Department expressed concern that
General McMaster was "jamming through" a troop decision.
Still, Mr. Trump's heavy reliance on military commanders risks a repeat of what some critics
viewed as a weakness of the Obama administration's troop debate, even with Mrs. Clinton's participation:
its overemphasis on a military solution.
"This whole decision is being seen too narrowly, through a military prism," said Daniel F.
Feldman, who served as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan under Mr. Obama. "It
has to be seen in a more integrated way. It requires a more aggressive diplomatic component."
... But what about the political formula? How will Afghanistan be governed after we leave?
Will it remain under its current constitution? What role will there be for the Taliban? How will
power be shared between Kabul and the provinces? How about the most troublesome neighbor, Pakistan?
What will its role be? And what can the United States do to make the answers these questions come
out in a direction that does as little harm to our interests as possible? ...
... If there is going to be a peaceful end to the war in Afghanistan unlikely as that may be,
it will come when the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan all agree on a rebalancing of the
government in Kabul, probably with a new constitution and probably either including the Taliban
in the new regime or giving the Taliban effective control of parts of southern Afghanistan in
some sort of federal system. ...
Military coups in Pakistan began in 1958 and there have been three successful attempts. There
have also been numerous unsuccessful attempts since 1951. Since its creation in 1947, Pakistan
has spent several decades under military rule (1958 – 1971, 1977 – 1988, 1999 – 2008). ... (Wikipedia)
"Questioning U.S. leadership makes it more difficult for the allies to send troops into harm's
way."
The question to be asked is why the
USA elite fights all this wars of neoliberal empire expansion at the expense of American people.
They steal money from people. Huge amount of money. In order to help multinationals. And to create
a smoke screen and justification inflate anti-Russian hysteria. Now probably 70% of Americans
are adamantly anti-Russian like in good old days of Cold War. Very convenient for stealing even
more money for MIC and multinationals: "stealing money as a patriotic duty"
Mother Jones recently announced it's "redoubling our Russia reporting" - in the words of editor
Clara Jeffery. Ain't that rich. What passes for "Russia reporting" at Mother Jones is mostly just
glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks - a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories
about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos,
destroying freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate
us, because we're free.
Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called "Russia reporting" of
the last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths - whether it's from Mother
Jones or MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.
But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic
about Russian "disinformation". It wasn't too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones
for spreading "Kremlin disinformation" and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to
the media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation
dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee
on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin "disinformation"
and "active measures" in America, and the American "dupes" who helped Moscow subvert our way of
life. That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America,
using "terrorism" as the main threat, and "disinformation" as terrorism's fellow traveller. The
way the the SST committee put it, "terrorism" and "Kremlin disinformation" were one and the same,
a meta-conspiracy run out of Moscow to weaken America.
And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee's sites.
Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including
King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early
Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild
wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones
of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording
of an interview between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama,
and a committee witness- a "disinformation expert" named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling
spy novel called "The Spike" - about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation,
and thereby rule the world.
Here's how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:
"In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News,
the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting
of false or misleading items in news media.
"Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble
with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't
know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too
critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could
be working for the Russians."
Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the "Kremlin disinformation"
conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas
power . . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation
dupe whether they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and
who isn't a Kremlin agent.
Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another "Red Scare", warning,
"[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little
sense as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism.
When Mr. de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation,
the accusation is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel
law than if he were to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.
" Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America's news media, then
anything must seem possible."
It's a damn shame today's editorial staff at Mother Jones aren't aware of their own magazine's
history.
Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn't care if you shoved their faces in their
own recent history - they're way too donor-deep invested in pushing this "active measures" conspiracy.
Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.
PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of
RealNetworks, to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can't
stand Trump or his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on - this?
One would've thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that
running against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem
is they didn't fear-monger enough, so they're "redoubling" on the Russophobia. Donor money is
driving this - donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones' editorial focus. And it really
is this crude.
Take for example a PutinTrump section titled "Russian Expansion" - the scary Red imagery and
language are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when,
it so happens, Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored
alien soldiers over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones' donor-partner promotes a classic Cold
War propaganda line about Russian/Soviet expansionism -- a lie that has been the basis for so
many wars launched to "stop" this alleged "expansionism" in the past, wars that Mother Jones is
supposed to oppose.
"... "Put your finger anywhere on a map of the world, and everywhere you will hear complaints that American officials are interfering in internal electoral processes," he said. ..."
"... "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," he said. "But, I repeat, we don't even have to do that. Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change." ..."
"... Putin claimed that Russia has a preference in an election but only reacts to the "political direction" that the United States seems to be heading in. "It wouldn't make sense for us to interfere," he said. ..."
...Kelly met Putin in St. Petersburg, the Russian president's hometown and his nation's
onetime capital, after sharing a
contentious discussion about Russia's attempts to hack the 2016 election
at the St.
Petersburg World International Economic Forum. Putin, a former KGB agent, has been painted
as the puppet master behind the challenge on November's voting.
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Putin ordered the disruption of the
election. During the interview, Putin tried to dismiss the evidence by claiming that the
United States has a history of meddling in foreign elections.
"Put your finger anywhere on a map of the world, and everywhere you will hear complaints
that American officials are interfering in internal electoral processes," he said.
Kelly pushed back at the assertion, saying it sounded like Putin's attempt to justify
his government's attempts to influence elections.
Putin demurred.
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," he said. "But, I repeat, we don't
even have to do that. Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the
main political direction does not change."
Putin claimed that Russia has a preference in an election but only reacts to the
"political direction" that the United States seems to be heading in.
"It wouldn't make sense for us to interfere," he said.
The conversation later turned to a pre-campaign dossier that was purportedly collected
on Trump.
But Putin, who once worked as a KGB recruiter, alleged that he has no knowledge of such
a dossier.
"Where would we get this information from? Why, did we have some special relationship
with him?" Putin asked. "We didn't have any relationship at all. There was a time when he
used to come to Moscow. But you know, I never met with him. We have a lot of Americans who
visit us."
Responding to Kelly's unrelenting line of questions about reports of Russian interference in the
U.S. and European political systems, Putin reached for a controversial comparison, complaining that
blaming Russians for the U.S. election had become a cliché tantamount to the anti-Semitic idea of
"blaming the Jews."
"This reminds me of anti-Semitism," Putin said. "The Jews are to blame for
everything. An idiot cannot do anything himself, so the Jews are to blame. But we know what such
attitudes lead to. They end with nothing good."
Instead, he said, Trump's opponents had to accept the election's result.
The tension mounted after an apparent fault in the translation track that translated Kelly's paraphrasing
of Trump's comments that he thinks Russia conducted cyberattacks on his opponents, to Kelly saying
"I think" Trump made that claim. "She thinks," Putin exclaimed, noting the issue required certainty.
Putin was also riled when discussing Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak's undisclosed meetings
with two Trump allies-former national security adviser Mike Flynn and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
"Should we not talk about improving tensions?" Putin asked. "What should an ambassador do? That is
his job. That is why he gets paid. He should hold meetings, discussing current affairs."
Putin turned even more combative when Kelly touched on the subject of Russian foreign news coverage
spreading "disinformation." Putin accused her "colleagues" of dragging Russia into their coverage
unfavorably.
Cameron clamped down on the British newspapers after the Edward Snowden global surveillance leaks
were published in 2014. He specifically threatened the take over of the UK Guardian where a number
of the foreign reporters, such as Glenn Greenwald and Nafeez Ahmed, no longer work.
We won't see stuff like the UK special forces embedded with the Libyan jihadist militias.
I'm convinced the newswires came out with the reporting on the CIA operation in Benghazi before
the authorities were distracted by the even to quash the articles.
"... Russian officials meeting with members of Trump's team during the campaign and transition, Putin declared they had just shared "general words about building relations" and that allegations of collusion were "some kind of hysteria, and you guys just can't stop". ..."
Russian president calls allegations of interference in US presidential
election 'useless and harmful chatter' at St Petersburg economic forum
Share on Facebook
Close
Vladimir Putin
has said the US needs to stop the "useless and harmful chatter"
about Russian interference in the presidential election, arguing that
-
Donald Trump
's electoral strategy was entirely responsible for his victory.
The Russian president added that this "attempt to solve internal political
issues using instruments of foreign policy" was damaging international relations.
"The problem is not here, the problem is within American politics. Trump's team
was more effective in the electoral campaign," Putin told the event's moderator,
the US television presenter Megyn Kelly.
"In all honesty, I myself sometimes thought that the guy was going too far, but
it turned out he was right: he found an approach to those groups of the population
and those groups of voters he counted on, and they came and voted for him," Putin
said.
Hillary Clinton's campaign team was blaming the Russians rather than admitting
its own mistakes, he said.
"It's easier to say we are not guilty, the Russians are guilty It reminds me
of antisemitism: the Jews are guilty of everything," Putin said at the end of his
comments, which drew titters from the audience.
"If the information about the Democratic party favouring Clinton was true, is
it really important who leaked it?" he asked, echoing his previous statements on
Russian hacking.
... ... ...
--
Russian officials meeting with members of Trump's team
during the campaign and
transition, Putin declared they had just shared "general words about building
relations" and that allegations of collusion were "some kind of hysteria, and you
guys just can't stop".
"Do we need to give you a pill? Does anyone have a pill? Give them a pill, really,
honestly. It's surprising," he said, raising a laugh even out of the impassive
Indian PM, Narendra Modi, who was seated next to him.
Austria's chancellor, Christian Kern, and Moldova's president, Igor Dodon, also
took part in the discussion.
Besides praising Trump's electoral campaign, Putin refused to condemn the US
president's
decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord
, making light of the
issue and questioning whether the countries of the world were really "in a
position to halt climate change".
"Somehow we here aren't feeling that the temperature is really rising, but we
should be thankful to President Trump. There was snow in Moscow today; [in St
Petersburg], it's rainy and cold – now we can blame all this on him and American
imperialism," Putin joked.
Putin told Kelly, in English, "Don't worry, be happy," assuring her that the
agreement would take effect in 2021, so there was still "plenty of time to reach
an agreement".
It wasn't clear what he was referring to in this comment, since the accord took
effect in November 2016.
One area where Putin was critical of Trump's policy was regarding the US
president's demand that Nato members raise their military spending to 2% of GDP.
"If they aren't planning to attack anyone, then why increase spending? That of
course worries us," Putin said.
Any establishment-anointed political candidate wants to say they are under attack by
the Russians because it gives them credibility, former MI5 intelligence officer Annie
Machon told RT. Political analyst Adam Garrie joins the discussion.
Guillaume Poupard, the head of the National Cybersecurity Agency of France (ANSSI),
said on Thursday there's no trace of a Russian hacking group being behind the attack on
Emmanuel Macron's presidential election campaign.
According to him, the hack was "so generic and simple that it could have been
practically anyone."
RT: Where does this statement by France's cybersecurity chief leave the claims of
Macron's team on Russian hacking?
Annie Machon: It leaves rather a lot of egg on their faces. It appears that this
attack was of such of low technical level it could have been done by a script kiddie
from their mom's basement. So rather than this hysteria about: 'The Russians must have
done it, the Russians must have done it,' which reminds me to a certain extent of the
Monty Python script that 'you must always expect a Spanish Inquisition.' It is beyond
parody. We have a situation now where he was trying to make political hay. It seems to
me that any establishment-anointed political candidate now wants to immediately say they
are under attack by the Russians because it gives them credibility. It is just crazy.
Now, the one thing we do know from this is that the one country that actually has
hacked the French election was the USA, and that was back in the presidential election
of 2012 where they were not only intercepting the electronic communications, they were
actually running human agents in the political parties. We know this because of
disclosures through the Vault 7 cache that WikiLeaks put out a month or two ago. For
everyone to go around blaming the Russians, when in fact the Americans have been doing
this for years, is rather rich?
RT: Why were members of Macron's team so sure about Russia's involvement? Do they
know something France's cybersecurity chief doesn't?
AM: Obviously not. I think there were just jumping on the bandwagon because it was
the sort of cool thing to do. After the fake buildup of the 'Russians hacked the
American elections,' which started by the way with a leak from the DNC [Democratic
National Committee] that was given to WikiLeaks, and somehow it moved into 'Russians
hacked the American election.'
Suddenly it has become established fact in the mainstream media in the West that the
Russians are going to hack every Western democratic election. That is patently not the
case in France, and it is also patently not the case in Germany, where there has also
been a similar panic about Russia trying to hack the forthcoming chancellor's elections
in the autumn this year. In fact, the BND [Federal Intelligence Service] and BfV
[Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution,] the two major intelligence
agencies in Germany, put out a report in February saying there was absolutely no
evidence whatsoever the Russians were trying to do this. Merkel didn't like that result.
She told her intelligence agencies to go away and to find more evidence and to find a
case to say that they were indeed trying to interfere in the German elections. It is
collective hysteria.
'Low-level hack'
Adam Garrie, political analyst
RT: Why were members of the Macron team so sure about Russia's involvement in hacking
the campaign? Do they know something France's cybersecurity chief doesn't?
AG: I strongly doubt that. They barely seem to know how to beat Marine Le Pen. But
with a little help from their friends in the mainstream media, France and elsewhere they
managed to just about accomplish that. It is simply the restating of a tired, old
narrative; they have very little else to say. Macron as a man, if you can even really
call him that in terms of his personality, is more of a viceroy, more of a governor
general than he is a president. Putin, at the press conference he had at Versailles with
Macron, questioned whether France is able to even independently conduct its foreign
policy in Syria, independent of NATO and the US-led coalition. So these people that
really don't have much to offer their own country, let alone their political masters,
are just churning out the narrative again and again. You've seen it with Hillary Clinton
in America, and her supporters, and you see something similar in France. And likewise,
the allegations are based – Donald Trump, probably accurately, said it could have been a
400-pound man in his bedroom somewhere. As the French authorities said today, it was
probably the work of a lone hacker, and the hack itself wasn't at the level of
sophistication that would have even required state operators to be behind it.
RT: Do you think all these Russian hacking allegations during the presidential race
had much impact on the final choice of the new president?
AG: I agree with President Putin on this. All of these hacks and allegations of hacks
have very little impact on the actual electoral results. People are going to look first
and foremost in all countries at domestic issues. Unless you're in the war-zone that's
what the priorities are going to be for voters. They are going to look at tax; they are
going to look at healthcare. They are going to look at living standards, wages,
employment, etc. – these sorts of things. This idea that somehow magically Russia is
pulling the political strings of various candidates in different Western countries is
simply absurd. And I personally give the average voter – whether in France or America –
more credit than the mainstream media is willing to give him.
"... I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." ..."
"... Apart from opportunistic careerism, the subtext to this realignment is a larger issue of culture, education, and class. A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own countries. ..."
"... I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent! ..."
"... The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to be against her. ..."
"... "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt." ..."
Of course, this begs an obvious question. Traitor to what? In an "America" which no longer
has a definable culture, language,
ethnos
, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?
The open celebration of what any other generation would have called "treason" reveals how fully
self-discrediting is the Russian "interference" narrative.
John Harington
famously quipped: "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare
call it treason." The "Russian interference" narrative is false because the fact it can be loudly
denounced without being shut down for being the equivalent of "racist" or "xenophobic" shows Russia
isn't very powerful within our government and society.
In contrast, our government and media seem to not only tolerate openly subversive or even hostile
actions by foreign governments against the United States, but celebrate them.
To criticize any of these countries, or to suggest dual loyalty on the part of their supporters
in this country, is political death. Of course, that is because such dual loyalty is sufficiently
strong that it is dangerous to broach the topic.
Indeed, for some in our Congress, dual loyalty would be a massive improvement.
The only reason we can't call men like these traitors is because there's no evidence they ever
considered themselves Americans in any meaningful way. What could be more ridiculous than considering
Chuck
Schumer "a fellow American" with some imaginary "common interest" he shares with me?
It's not double loyalty; that would be giving Maher too much credit. And it's not treason, because
Maher just isn't part of my people, by his own standards. When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know
that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.
Of course, there is a Trump associate who has disturbing ties with a country doing just that.
The main focus of the investigation into "Russian collusion" is focusing on former
National Security Advisor Michael Flynn . But Flynn's strongest ties to a foreign power seem
to be to be increasingly
extreme and anti-European Turkey of the autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Incredibly, Flynn even
wrote an editorial demanding more support for Turkey on election day itself. [
Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support , by Michael Flynn, The Hill, November
8, 2016]
As Turkey is quite openly facilitating the migrant invasion of Europe and helping ISIS, there's
a far better case to claim our NATO "ally" is a threat than Russia. And yet Flynn's ties to Turkey
go all but unmentioned outside evangelical Christian websites [
Best-selling author predicted Flynn's departure , WND, February 14, 2017].
The MSM is utterly indifferent to Flynn's ties to Erdogan, even when they seem to be utterly dedicated
to destroying General Flynn personally.
Part of it simply could be the defense industry and the
"Deep State" need an enemy with a powerful conventional military to justify their wealth and
power. As it can't be China (that would be racist), Russia will do.
The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat. Russia is funding, or
at least is tied to, several alternative media sources such as RT, possibly Wikileaks,
Sputnik etc. Contrary to MSM claims, RT is hardly friendly to the "Alt-Right," instead
promoting progressive hosts such as Thom Hartmann. But there is at least a slightly different point
of view than the monolithic Narrative promoted on every late night comedy show, network news broadcast,
cable news broadcast, newspaper headline, and Establishment website [
The Hard Road For Putin , by Gregory Hood, Radix, July 22, 2014].
There is also an undeniable,
and openly articulated , sense of racial hatred expressed against Russians by Jewish members
of the media. Russians are hated both as a specific ethnos and as a white nation which does
not seem to be fully committed to "our values," which, as defined by Weimerica's journalist class,
consists of various forms of degeneracy. [
Welcome to
Weimerica , by Ryan Landry, Daily Caller, May 5, 2017].
John Winthrop's "City Upon A Hill" we are not.
It's not just idiotic but obscene that the same journalists gleefully involved in deconstructing
the American identity now demand Middle America rally round the flag out of some misplaced Cold War
nostalgia. Needless to say,
these same journalists loved Russia back when it was Communist and killing millions of Orthodox
Christians.
For immigration patriots, it's especially obnoxious because the eradication of the American identity
is a result of mass immigration. And immigration is more important than every other issue for two
reasons.
Immigration cuts to the heart of what a country is, of who you mean when you say "my people."
Are Americans still one people? Indeed, it's hard to claim America is even a geographic expression:
referring to the United States shorthand
as "America" is
now designated as offensive . The replacement of existing American citizens is
celebrated by the media and
funded by our own government.
And even citizenship means nothing, The MSM constantly promotes
Jose Antonio Vargas and his illegal friends or the protesters who parade under foreign flags
not just as "Americans" but as people somehow more American than us.
It's a strange definition of patriotism where wanting peaceful relations with Russia is "treason"
but banning the American flag in public schools because it might offend Mexicans
is government policy .
Naturally, Leftist intellectuals and the reporters who parrot their ideas do have some vague idea
of "American" identity-that of a "proposition" or "universal" nation which exists only to fight a
global struggle for equality [
Superpowers , by James Kirkpatrick, NPI, June 24, 2013].
But can you betray a "proposition nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal
nation?"
Actually, you can. If you are part of the historic American nation, one of those European-Americans
who actually think of this country as a real nation with a real culture, you are in a strange way
the only people left out of what it means to be a modern "American." To consider America a particular
place with a specific culture and history that not everyone in the world can join simply by existing
is treason to a "universal nation." Everyone in the world can be an "American," except, you know,
actual Americans.
This is why the MSM is insistent that the governing philosophy of "
America First ,"
which should simply be a truism for any rational American government, is instead
something subversive and dangerous .
The hard truth is that "our" rulers aren't the guardians of our sovereignty, but the greatest threat
to our independence.
And this isn't an unprecedented circumstance in history. During the Napoleonic occupation of Prussia,
Carl von Clausewitz
violated his king's orders to join the invasion of Russia and instead joined the Tsar's forces
in the hope of someday liberating his own country. After all, it wasn't Tsar Alexander that was occupying
Prussia; it was Napoleon. And in the end, he won, Prussia was restored, and eventually it was Prussia
that would unite all of Germany.
The same situation applies today. Today, those actively pursuing the destruction of my people,
culture and civilization aren't in Moscow. I don't even concede those are enemies at all.
Our enemies are in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, in "our" own media companies, government
bureaucracies and intelligence agencies.
The real America is under occupation – and resistance to collaborators is patriotism to our country.
We elected Donald Trump because we thought he could help disrupt and perhaps even end that occupation
so we could have a country once again.
The attempt to destroy the President has ripped the mask off
the forces behind
this occupation . And we owe no loyalty to the collaborators who are trying to destroy his administration,
dispossess our people, and destroy our country.
Because in the end, "treason" to the occupation is loyalty to America.
I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our
enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St.
Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities
of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism."
Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not,
of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves. Orthodox Christian
Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt
I and his war party of would be empire builders.
This kind of purposeful switching of truth for lies and lies for truth, described excellently
here by Mr. Kirkpatrick ( of VDare! ) is straight outta the Bible, and that's not a good sign
at all. PeakStupidity
here is on the search for the passage in question. Anyone, anyone .. Buehler?
"I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone
directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."
- Buckley
We'd also be better off governed by names from the Moscow phone book than by the New York Times
and Washington Post.
"It's not merely that [Jacob] Schiff wielded enormous power, but rather the fact that his actions,
more so than anyone else's, fundamentally altered the course of American history. Schiff was really
the first true Jewish Mega-Mogul of the whole United States (Judah Benjamin had previously run
the confederacy). As the first, Schiff, more than anyone who followed him, was able to leverage
his power into eternity. That is why the MVZ award must go to him .
Schiff hated Christian Russia with a passion. He worked ceaselessly to overthrow the Romanov
Dynasty and replace it with Jewish Reds / Communists. Toward that end, he personally financed,
and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese
War. As a result, the war ended with a Japanese victory. Russia's loss was also facilitated by
Schiff's boy, President (and also a former New York Governor) Teddy Roosevelt*, whose negotiating
intervention clearly favored Japan over Russia
(* Roosevelt became President after the conservative William McKinley was conveniently assassinated
by aPolish[?]-American anarchist Leon Czolgosz, Teddy being conveniently Vice-President. Roosevelt
was Assistant Secretary of the Navy when the first false-flag incident of the USS Maine occured,
later on followed by the Lusiatania – when FD Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy- and
Pearl Harbour).
"Schiff's Jewish agents in Russia skillfully used the humiliating loss of the Russo-Japanese
war as an occasion to launch a Communist revolution. The bloody Revolution of 1905 ultimately
failed, but the Tsar's regime was left considerably weakened. Many of the returning Russian POW's
came home brainwashed after Schiff had arranged for Communist propaganda to be given to them while
in Japanese captivity. The final Bolshevik overthrow of Russia in 1917 will owe its success, in
large part, to the damage done to Russia by the team of Jacob Schiff & Ted the Red Roosevelt on
1905.
President William H. Taft proved to be a Constitutional Conservative, and not a big government
"progressive" like his predecessor Teddy Roosevelt. But what really angered Jacob Schiff most
of all was Taft's refusal, told to Schiff in person, to dampen trade relations with Tsarist Russia*.
According to Henry Ford's sources, Schiff and his entourage left the White House saying. "This
means war .
[*Schiff imposed also the abrogation of the Russian American Trade Treaty of 1832 in 1911,
first instance of 'sanctions' motivated by the 'ill-treatement' of Jews in Russia (actually of
the Jews emigrated to America returning to Russia holding American passports and engaged in subversive
activities)].
"In order to oust the popular Republican Taft in 1912, Schiff and company recruited Teddy Roosevelt
to run for President again, as a third party challenger. This maneuver split the Republican vote
in two, allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to steal the Presidency. Wilson's Jewish owned presidency
would turn out to be disastrous for America, and the world (The Fed, World War I, Russian Revolution,
Jewish foothold in Palestine, Depression of 1919-1920)
As was the case during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the chaos of World War I enabled the
Communists (Bolsheviks) to stage another uprising in 1917. Leading the diabolical efforts was
Jacob Schiff's loyal agent, Leon Trotsky, freshly reestablished in Russia after having hidden
in Brooklyn for the past decade. The Tsar had been forced to abdicate earlier that same year.
The provisional government would then be overthrown by the Jewish-led Bolsheviks.
The following year, Schiff's agents murdered the Tsar and his entire family. The reign of terror
that the Soviets then ushered in would plague humanity for decades to come. Scores of millions
would be murdered! And it could never have happened without the tireless leadership of Rothschild,
Schiff and their Junior partners.
Soon after the Revolution, Schiff removed Russia (now the Soviet Union) from his "do-not-lend
list".
Just for a little 'piquant'. The granddaughter of Jacob, Dorothy, had a 'relationship' (which
detractors called an 'affair') with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
... No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with
capitalism. Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam.
And when the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism,
most Jews lost faith in communism.
Some still had nostalgia for Old Idealism and did credit USSR for having defeated Nazi Germany,
but few Jews were communist by the 80s when Soviet Union entered into its death throes. Also,
the New Left of the 60s was more about drugs and rock n roll than revolution.
Also, the Soviet Union became gentile-dominated by the late 30s, and after WWII, especially
as Zionists in Israel chose US over USSR, Jews came under increasing suspicion and even discrimination
in the communist world. Initially, Stalin installed many Jewish communists in Eastern European
nations, but after the fallout over Israel, many were purged as 'Zionists'.
So, most Jews welcomed the fall of the USSR. If anything, Jews used finance-capitalism to amass
control of much of Russian resources.
And in the 90s, most powerful Jews did everything in their power to make sure the Russian Communist
Party would not be come to power. They pulled every dirty trick in the book to ensure Yeltsin
winning another term.
Those were the good ole days for Jews in Russia. And if they had been less greedy, they may
have kept the power. But they grabbed too much loot and turned a blind eye to all the suffering,
and this gave an opening to the Russian nationalists(mild though they may be). Mild nationalists
like Putin didn't purge Jews, but he sent a message that Russia would no longer be a 'vacationland
for Jewish lawyers in love'.
So, Jews tried various means to crack Russian nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and sovereignty.
They used Pussy Riot and Homomania. They didn't work.
So, the main reason for anti-Russianism has nothing to do with communism. The problem for Jews
is that Russia rejects globalism or at least globalist domination. Jewish power is centered on
globalism. Nationalism is anathema to Jews because it means that the national elites should represent,
defend, and serve their national masses. All nations except Israel is majority gentile. So, nationalism
makes national gentile elites grow closer to national gentile masses. This accounts for mass support
for Putin in Russia.
In contrast, under globalism, the national elites serve globalist elites than their national
people, and that means national leaders serve Soros and his ilk than their own folk.
Now, you'd think that the masses would rebel against the leaders if for treason, but Public
Education and Pop Culture have brainwashed tons of masses too. Look at all the white dummies in
the US who support globalism that is actually hurting them. And they would rather side with Diversity(invasion)
than with their own hurting kind.
These whites attack Trump for opposing mass invasion of the US by More Diversity. Why would
they want to invaded and be made into a minority people? They've been mentally-colonized by the
Glob Virus.
Many USA jews, and rabbis, were against Zionism because the USA was the new Zion. Henry Ford
around 1918 began to see the increase of jewish power in the USA, and began resistance.
Around 1933 world jewry accomplished a world wide boycott of Ford cars, and Ford gave up. Trump,
though he has many close jewish contacts, is not the puppet of the neocons. Hillary is. So Deep
State wants to get rid of Trump,in order to continue their plans to subjugate the whole world,
the globalised world, where all cultures have disappeared, the whole world one big USA clone.
High-quality TV with Victor Davis Hanson and Tucker Carlson:
Inside Dems' 'big lie' about Trump and Russia
Published on May 18, 2017
Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' that Democrats and the media cling to
in quest to get Pres. Trump out of office #Tucker
This is a very welcome new development for the Alt Right:
Tucker Carlson's Reinvention
[...] We've become fans of the show in this household even though we consume far more more information
from the internet than cable television. He's reaching an audience which normally doesn't watch
FOX News.
Apart from opportunistic careerism, the subtext to this realignment is a larger issue
of culture, education, and class. A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized
elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other
side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own countries.
Just as Hillary Clinton may feel more comfortable with the old neoconservatives, Trump supporters
have little in common with either Clintonites or neocons.
Clinton versus Trump is a war of NPR, CBS, and the New York Times against the National Enquirer,
conservative talk radio, and the Drudge Report. Clinton supporters such as former New York
mayor Michael Bloomberg, onetime Bush officials Hank Paulson and Brent Scowcroft, and billionaire
Meg Whitman certainly have nothing in common with Republican Trump supporters such as Mike
Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh.
Culture, not just politics, is rapidly destroying - but also rebuilding - traditional political
parties.
Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews – they are staffed and manned
by the imported American Rabbis of Habad. Best and the choicest pieces of Russian municipal land
are given to synagogues and Jewish cultural centres for free.
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-russian-scare/
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ
such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent!
The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would
do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason
to be against her.
Take a recent incident The NYT publishes a smear story accusing Trump of revealing classified
information to Lavrov. McMaster and other American officials present in the meeting rush to deny
that Trump reveal classified information, and only mentioned things about the laptop scare that
had already been public for weeks. Putin follows by offering to send Congress the Russian transcript
of the meeting to show Trump didn't reveal any classified information. Then Trump goes on Twitter:
Of course I revealed classified information! I'm the President and it's my right! Go help somebody
like that
"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using
anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing
to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything,
in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
@Wally Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews ....
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs
Shamir is an inveterate liar and the figure of 90+ synagogues in Moscow is fraudulent.
@Sebastian Puettmann Don't kid youselves.
The Russians hate you more than Keith Olberman.
He is just confused.
The Russians hate you more than Keith Olberman.
We all hate Keith Olberman, but the Russians don't get the same cable channels. Why would they
hate Keith Olberman when he doesn't even come on TV there?
I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever once been "one
people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its elites have always
propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom ever.
There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and jews),
but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc.
I think there might be Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American
identities, but there never was a true American identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians
or even Canadians have.
The reason is first the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American
society is a dog eat dog society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being
independent as individual or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part
of and embedded in a social group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It
was always more patchwork than melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive
massacres did its part as well.
There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army
– but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has
always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism,
materialism, hedonism – an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material
goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity
either.
There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity.
I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will
create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or
the Germans.
@Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater
to gays.
Communist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they
are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running
the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.
The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment
of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block,
and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total
madness.
"Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience
to even elaborate thereon.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz artist.
PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style
Jazz players coming out of Russia. You are making several good points, but I won't hit the 'agree'
button, because I agree with the Priss Factor's reply to your main points.
Again, it is amusing that you post the same potted description of you on every post.
If you post under a pseudonym and won't identify your 'authentic jazz', you may be wiser to
drop the claims.
Just leave the occasional incidental.
Nice to see you making a post that makes much sense, though.
@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the
Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional
war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the
ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the
Russian expeditionary force regularly use.
Unfortunately Trump will have to
kill some Russians now
. Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because
the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and
Iraq. A typical cuckservative response, how about you respond to what this article is about. The
facts are absolutely clear the greatest enemies are those that exist in America, they have been
mentioned in this article, your obsession with Russia is not going to deflect from this fact.
Its rather simple, Ukraine is not American, despite all your stupid domino theories yourwill
no doubt bring up, on the other hand extremists like Olberman openly support mass non white immigration
into the USA, what would any reasonable nationalist think is the bigger issue.
@Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never
been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase
St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities
of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." Once it cast off those
chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist
Zionist empire which the American deep state serves.
Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until
the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Here's a 1200-page read
for you. It's from a traditionalist Catholic perspective.
@Serg Derbst I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever
once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its
elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom
ever. There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and
jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc. I think there might be Anglo-American,
Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American
identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have. The reason is first
the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog
society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual
or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social
group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than
melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.
There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army
- but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has
always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism,
materialism, hedonism - an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material
goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity
either.
There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity.
I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will
create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or
the Germans. I partially agree with you on the identity thing, but on the other hand the American
identity (I say this as a non American) was based on being white. There was the notable exception
of the blacks, but they did not make up the majority of the population and their acceptance as
being American was the exception more than the rule, their distinct culture added some spice to
what was America, but nobody can seriously believe that if the USA was 90% black it would still
be America.
You also now have the situation that people arrive off planes from places like India, China
or Somalia and are declared American, I find that ridiculous. Sadly this is no longer a problem
only in America, its the same in Sweden, France, Germany, UK, etc, they all have made what being
a people is completely meaningless.
@Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty
Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall,
they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in.
General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening
Russia.
There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main
Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great
Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas .
Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them.
That is a very strange assertion, as are many of your others. Strong evidence has been widely
reported about the gas attack while Obama was Prex of the USA having had a Turkish connection.
Erdogan imprisoned many reporters on this and other ties with al Qaeda and the Islamic state.
It is easy to look up.
Assad is an idiot.
He was a respected opthalmolagist in London for years, testimonials from former (British) patients
are not hard to find. Opthalmology may not be the most demanding medical speciality, but it is
up there, and is not a nest of idiots.
If you want to see an idiot, you may try the mirror.
@Serg Derbst I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever
once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its
elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom
ever. There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and
jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc. I think there might be Anglo-American,
Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American
identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have. The reason is first
the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog
society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual
or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social
group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than
melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.
There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army
- but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has
always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism,
materialism, hedonism - an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material
goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity
either.
There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity.
I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will
create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or
the Germans.
There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity.
I don't see it.
and, with a name like Serb, I can see why. Why are you writing about something that you obviously
(from your racism drivel in the 1st paragraph) know not a damn thing about?
You are an prime example of the data points we at
PeakStupidity use to prove that America
and the West has arrived at a global maximum.
The United States of America, that dream of what a democratic republic ought to be, has become
the Fascist States of America. As the 2016 elections have more than revealed, we have moved beyond
the era of representative government and have entered into a new age. You can call it the age
of authoritarianism. Or fascism. Or oligarchy. Either way, argues John W. Whitehead, we are being
played for fools.
@Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. ....
Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until
the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Stalin was our enemy,
a Roosevelt creation.
He died in 1953, probably murdered.
Then the threat was over, those that did nog believe it should have realised it when Chrustjow
removed his rockets and atomic warheads from Cuba.
But the USA went on with the madness of possible mutual destruction, I suppose in the hope that
the cost of the war effort would cause the collapse of the USSR.
@Seraphim @the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Just a
reminder of who made Teddy. Everybody knows by now (a short overview@http://www.tomatobubble.com/id695.html)
....
I had never heard of that before.
It is irony on at least two levels, the treatment of the Japanese P.o.W.s from Manchuria, 40
years later, included much Communist indoctrination, although that was the time of the nadir of
Jewish Bolshevism, I am quite sure that demoted Jewish officials would have been in charge of
the Siberian prison camps where P.o.Ws from Japan were.
The other irony is the German High Command's use of Lenin as a kind of human bomb that spectacularly
misfired on their intentions.
So, you are saying that Japan tried the same thing 12 years earlier, on a smaller scale?
It is an interesting idea, but foundation of the JCP was later but a joke version "was"founded
earlier, perhaps that has a connection.
A comment not connected to this thread, some idiot on another claiming knowledge said that
the victory in the Russo-Japanese war is not commemorated here. It is a lie.
The order is, how we were victimised by cruel bombings and having soldiers imprisoned in Manchuria,
how we were great to invade China and other places, the technical genius of the Mitsubisi Zero
(and I am to fully agreeing with that one), the sadness of the Special Attack Forces, and how
clever was Admiral Togo in the Russo-Japanese war (also to agreeing with that, just from a military
perspective).
@Achmed E. Newman This kind of purposeful switching of truth for lies and lies for truth,
described excellently here by Mr. Kirkpatrick ( of VDare! ) is straight outta the Bible, and that's
not a good sign at all.
PeakStupidity here
is on the search for the passage in question. Anyone, anyone ..... Buehler? Isiah 5:20:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
There are similar passages elsewhere but I think this is the most commonly cited.
@ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly
diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed
in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?
@What has changed in 2000 years?
A steady Judaization of Christianity. They are no more Christians.
@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the
Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional
war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the
ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the
Russian expeditionary force regularly use.
Unfortunately Trump will have to
kill some Russians now
. Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because
the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and
Iraq. Trump doesn't "have" to do any such thing.
The Russians in Syria are protecting Christians, and they are fighting against our worst enemies,
radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
In addition to defeating Al-Qaeda and protecting Middle Eastern Christians, Russian-American
friendship would have many other benefits – boosting American exports, balancing the rise of China,
and cooperating to end the migrant invasion of Europe.
@Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty
Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall,
they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in.
General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening
Russia.
There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main
Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great
Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas . The 1986 amnesty was
Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get.
Toward that end, he personally financed, and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire
Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese War.
Much of what you are saying I had read in passing (interesting post), but that is interesting
to me. Do you have a pointer to something I could read on it, preferably on the 'net or a book
in Japanese (also the below).
Schiff had arranged for Communist propaganda to be given to them while in Japanese captivity.
I had never heard of that before.
It is irony on at least two levels, the treatment of the Japanese P.o.W.s from Manchuria, 40
years later, included much Communist indoctrination, although that was the time of the nadir of
Jewish Bolshevism, I am quite sure that demoted Jewish officials would have been in charge of
the Siberian prison camps where P.o.Ws from Japan were.
The other irony is the German High Command's use of Lenin as a kind of human bomb that spectacularly
misfired on their intentions.
So, you are saying that Japan tried the same thing 12 years earlier, on a smaller scale?
It is an interesting idea, but foundation of the JCP was later ... but a joke version "was"founded
earlier, perhaps that has a connection.
A comment not connected to this thread, some idiot on another claiming knowledge said that
the victory in the Russo-Japanese war is not commemorated here. It is a lie.
The order is, how we were victimised by cruel bombings and having soldiers imprisoned in Manchuria,
how we were great to invade China and other places, the technical genius of the Mitsubisi Zero
(and I am to fully agreeing with that one), the sadness of the Special Attack Forces, and how
clever was Admiral Togo in the Russo-Japanese war (also to agreeing with that, just from a military
perspective). You will find it in:
Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership
@Agent76 Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad!
Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell - Aug 8 - Charlie Rose
https://youtu.be/UZK2FZGKAd0 It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation,
my definition of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'.
@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. Raegan never made any mistake:
'he slept through it all'.
Thank you, James Kirkpatrick, for another excellent article. Some of the hyperlinks in his
essay however seem not to be functioning properly.
It's heartening to see Kirkpatrick finally explore (though gingerly) the Jewish angle to the
never-ending chain of Trump-loathing 'experts' and Russia-hating politicians. Indeed, it is the
Israel factor that remains the most potent as well as the most sacrosanct element in this fake
drama about US secrets and 'compromised' national security.
Indeed, it is the marauding kosher beast–not Russia–that gets to graze unmolested throughout
Washington while smaller, non-threatening animals are hunted down and slaughtered.
This top-down smoke and fog and hysteria suggests that America is no longer a sovereign state.
This is true. But Russia has nothing to do with our nation's loss of self-rule. All this malarky
about Putin's interference in our presidential election is a media-orchestrated farce. America
should actually be aligned with Christian Russia, not engaged in damaging the Russian economy
via sanctions or marching NATO up to its doorstep. But the warmongering and the deceptions about
Russia, as well as the special treatment accorded Israel, continues.
Thus the MSM shrieks endlessly about non-existent Russian subversion but deliberately looks
away when Israeli interference in US elections is operating and evident and functioning as designed.
It's fake news about what is fast becoming a fake, lobotomized, Zionized nation.
Big media beats its chest over compromised US intelligence, yet it is nuclear Israel–not Russia–that
has apparent access to raw US intelligence like no other foreign state.
And it is Israel–not Russia–that routinely steers America into needless conflicts against the
foes of Zionism, even though these small, distant counties (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Palestine,
Lebanon) seek no war with Washington and pose no threat to the American people.
Trump, for all his subservient, pro-Israel posturing (not to mention his needless attack on
Assad's Syria) remains too white, too independent, too 'old America' for his Jewish overlords
or for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump must go.
Just as Mel Gibson will always be radioactive in Hollywood for making accurate remarks about
Jews being in the center of most European wars, Trump let the cat out of the bag by suggesting
that Washington's serial warfare in the Middle East is "not in our national interest". The truthfulness
of his simple observation rendered Trump a long-term threat to Israel's special status in America
as well as Israel's unannounced goal of upending and reshaping the Middle East via US military
power.
Even though Trump has recently changed course, his patriotic and nationalistic messages linger
in the mind. If acted upon, Trump's campaign promises pose a threat to 1) increased (non-white)
multiculturalism inside America and 2) more wars against Israel's enemies abroad. The Zions don't
like this brand of nativism one bit. That political highway is reserved for Israelis, not Americans.
Most importantly, Israel and crypto-Israelis inside Washington remain committed to smashing
the alliance between Iran, Syria and Russia. This requires a subservient president. Trump's erratic
conduct and rhetoric endangers this Israeli objective. This animates the anti-Trump coup now underway.
US-based Israelis believe that VP Pence is a far more reliable Christian Zionist than the bombastic
and unpredictable 'America First' president. This is why Trump is being targeted with such unceasing
venom.
The Russians in Syria are protecting Christians, and they are fighting against our worst enemies,
radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
In addition to defeating Al-Qaeda and protecting Middle Eastern Christians, Russian-American
friendship would have many other benefits - boosting American exports, balancing the rise of China,
and cooperating to end the migrant invasion of Europe. Your benefits are to Deep State horrible
losses.
The real reason is that the Russians are a convenient cover-up for Democratic incompetence.
It is an alternate reality to convince the base and the sponsors that Hillary lost the election
because she was co-opted by the Red Tide.
Dems really think that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the DNC emails and give it to Wikileaks.
It really is a mental illness at this point.
They wanted Comey fired, but when Trump did it, it was obstruction. They wanted a Special Prosecutor,
but now are worried that he may not find anything. They believe the incessant hysteria is whipping
up their base and will guarantee the House in the 2018 election. Hope they crash and burn in 2018.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
There are similar passages elsewhere but I think this is the most commonly cited. Thank you
very much, Linda! I know there are plenty of search tools and places to search on-line, but I
didn't have the wording right.
@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. I agree with your point, John,
but would like to say that Ronald Reagan's mistake with the amnesty of 1986 was in
trusting members of
the US Congress , not so much what should have been a 1-time deal – though, I grant you, any
amnesty was a bad deal for Americans.
Here is more regarding
Reagan's regrets on that whole fiasco.
@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. With that amnesty he could never
win any vote California if he existed now, this the problem with all these cuck types, they all
want to believe in the magic dirt of America that somehow they will have another Reagan one day,
this will never happen and Reagan shares part of the blame.
@Agent76 Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad!
Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell - Aug 8 - Charlie Rose
https://youtu.be/UZK2FZGKAd0 Do you think think this middling intellect, son of an autoworker
from Akron, Ohio with a degree in accounting from U. of Akron, realizes he's only a useful goyim
tool and has no real power??
@Mark Green Thank you, James Kirkpatrick, for another excellent article. Some of the hyperlinks
in his essay however seem not to be functioning properly.
It's heartening to see Kirkpatrick finally explore (though gingerly) the Jewish angle to the
never-ending chain of Trump-loathing 'experts' and Russia-hating politicians. Indeed, it is the
Israel factor that remains the most potent as well as the most sacrosanct element in this fake
drama about US secrets and 'compromised' national security.
Indeed, it is the marauding kosher beast--not Russia--that gets to graze unmolested throughout
Washington while smaller, non-threatening animals are hunted down and slaughtered.
This top-down smoke and fog and hysteria suggests that America is no longer a sovereign state.
This is true. But Russia has nothing to do with our nation's loss of self-rule. All this malarky
about Putin's interference in our presidential election is a media-orchestrated farce. America
should actually be aligned with Christian Russia, not engaged in damaging the Russian economy
via sanctions or marching NATO up to its doorstep. But the warmongering and the deceptions about
Russia, as well as the special treatment accorded Israel, continues.
Thus the MSM shrieks endlessly about non-existent Russian subversion but deliberately looks
away when Israeli interference in US elections is operating and evident and functioning as designed.
It's fake news about what is fast becoming a fake, lobotomized, Zionized nation.
Big media beats its chest over compromised US intelligence, yet it is nuclear Israel--not Russia--that
has apparent access to raw US intelligence like no other foreign state.
And it is Israel--not Russia--that routinely steers America into needless conflicts against
the foes of Zionism, even though these small, distant counties (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Palestine,
Lebanon) seek no war with Washington and pose no threat to the American people.
Trump, for all his subservient, pro-Israel posturing (not to mention his needless attack on
Assad's Syria) remains too white, too independent, too 'old America' for his Jewish overlords
or for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump must go.
Just as Mel Gibson will always be radioactive in Hollywood for making accurate remarks about
Jews being in the center of most European wars, Trump let the cat out of the bag by suggesting
that Washington's serial warfare in the Middle East is "not in our national interest". The truthfulness
of his simple observation rendered Trump a long-term threat to Israel's special status in America
as well as Israel's unannounced goal of upending and reshaping the Middle East via US military
power.
Even though Trump has recently changed course, his patriotic and nationalistic messages linger
in the mind. If acted upon, Trump's campaign promises pose a threat to 1) increased (non-white)
multiculturalism inside America and 2) more wars against Israel's enemies abroad. The Zions don't
like this brand of nativism one bit. That political highway is reserved for Israelis, not Americans.
Most importantly, Israel and crypto-Israelis inside Washington remain committed to smashing
the alliance between Iran, Syria and Russia. This requires a subservient president. Trump's erratic
conduct and rhetoric endangers this Israeli objective. This animates the anti-Trump coup now underway.
US-based Israelis believe that VP Pence is a far more reliable Christian Zionist than the bombastic
and unpredictable 'America First' president. This is why Trump is being targeted with such unceasing
venom. If any state in the world is sovereign it is the USA.
USA military power, and political power still enable the USA to do as it pleases.
All other states in the world are less sovereign, just because of USA power.
What you write about is USA democracy, is what the USA does what the USA people want ?
The election of Trump, though he did not get the popular vote, means in my opinion that a large
part of the USA population is fed up with the establishment politicians.
What USA citizens who did not vote want, I do not know, I wonder if anyone knows.
Just now on Belgian tv was a report on USA citizens who are pro Trump, what they mean by 'making
America great again', not very clear to me.
A USA commentator stated that many Americans do not recognise the present USA as the USA they
knew, or want.
Mentioned was socialism: the welfare state, gays, migrants.
And hostility to establishment politicians.
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/05/17/lets-connect-the-dots/#more-150513 Leon Czolgosz
was not Polish.
He was a Jew whose family lived in Poland for a few generations and then moved to Anerica.
He was a follower of Emma Goldberg and Alexander Berkman who thanks be to God were deported back
to Russia just in time to participate in the revolution.
Id just like to point out that the reason so many Chinese are giving tech and military secrets
to China is my personal bete noire affirmative action. Were it not for affirmative action those
military and tech secrets would be in the hands of White Americans, not foreign spies whose only
qualification that they are not White.
I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot of holes in its foundations.
To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is
a bit absurd.
No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills
for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good
measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).
Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States.
His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental
positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency,
his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy,
and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many
other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of
a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all
shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.
As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking
what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American
history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.
Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the
winners are always the highest bidders.
Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for
Southern Independence.
America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their
way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out
of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason;
he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America
in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never
was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but
one to protect the wealthy and their needs.
There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself
while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward
spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to
protect the White privileged classes .
@Achmed E. Newman I agree with your point, John, but would like to say that Ronald Reagan's
mistake with the amnesty of 1986 was in
trusting members of
the US Congress , not so much what should have been a 1-time deal - though, I grant you, any
amnesty was a bad deal for Americans.
Here is more regarding
Reagan's regrets on that whole fiasco. A decade before he even ran for governor Reagan was spotted
by DART industries and other cut throat capitalists who wanted to reverse every gain the working
class made in the 20th century.
Reagan's backers knew that the easiest way to do this was to import millions of legal and illegal
immigrants to replace Americans in every job from physician to dishwasher.
So Reagan CLAIMED to regret his amnesty after the damage was done. There is an old French saying.
"Don't listen to what he says, look at what he does."
That's what I do. I look beyond the rehetoric and look at what is done. Reagan betrayed his
working and middle class White voters with amnesty and making affirmative action worse.
@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the
Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional
war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the
ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the
Russian expeditionary force regularly use.
Unfortunately Trump will have to
kill some Russians now
. Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because
the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and
Iraq. " because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine"
Since then the UnzReview has become a platform for the Kagans' clan propaganda? The data on
three (3) referenda have shown that Crimeans wanted a greater autonomy from Kiev long before the
US-sponsored thugs of neo-Nazi leaning followed cookie-carrying Nuland-Kagan towards the "bright
future" of today's economic and moral decline in Ukraine. Are not you longing for more auto-da-fe
in Odessa, which was conducted by neo-Nazis battalion Azov in 2014? At that time the battalion
was financed by an Israeli citizen and pillar of Jewish community of Ukraine Mr. Kolomojsky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeguAaPYKU8
It is understandable why Israel-firsters hate Russian federation; the russkies dared to stop the
advance of ISIS in a great game for Eretz Israel and other attractive mythological trinkets of
supremacist kind.
When the US and EU are hollowed out by your insatiable tribe, where would the "eternal victims"
have to go? To Rothschild bunkers?
@Zogby I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ
such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent!
The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do
anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to
be against her.
Take a recent incident...
The NYT publishes a smear story accusing Trump of revealing classified information to Lavrov.
McMaster and other American officials present in the meeting rush to deny that Trump reveal
classified information, and only mentioned things about the laptop scare that had already been
public for weeks.
Putin follows by offering to send Congress the Russian transcript of the meeting to show Trump
didn't reveal any classified information.
Then Trump goes on Twitter: Of course I revealed classified information! I'm the President
and it's my right!
Go help somebody like that... Actually it's true. The president, not state or justice and certainly
not the liberal press is completely in charge of foreign affairs and the President can classify
or not classify any and all information.
Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back.
The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed
at the beginning.
@Steve Naidamast I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot
of holes in its foundations.
To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is
a bit absurd.
No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills
for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good
measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).
Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States.
His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental
positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency,
his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy,
and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many
other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of
a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all
shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.
As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking
what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American
history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.
Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the
winners are always the highest bidders.
Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for
Southern Independence.
America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their
way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out
of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason;
he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America
in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never
was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but
one to protect the wealthy and their needs.
There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself
while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward
spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to
protect the White privileged classes....
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that
never was.
As most people understand the term, American identity refers to the racial and cultural characteristics
of the people.
American identity has, since the nation's inception, been chiefly European and Christian. Today,
the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction
(induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education) and mass replacement immigration.
The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what
you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to
do the same to their people.
I just got out of the car after listening to the vomitorium NPR's daily short-stroke
session with Brooks and Dudiowhocares how the weasel spells his fairy-sounding name. It's interesting,
listening to a Jew (I could be wrong, but it's NPR, so probably not) interview a Jew pretending
to be an Anglo Conservative, and a goy leftist that I find indistinguishable from a Brooklyn Jew.
Anyhoo, between tossing each other off, Brooks (loyalty: Israel, his son serves in the IDF FFS)
called Russia our "adversary." You know it's a lie when the media says it. Did NPR's pet "Conservatives"
refer to the Soviet Union as our "adversary"?
Media = scum. Otherwise, they couldn't get work in that business.
Indeed. Many years ago, I used terms like "ZOG" only with emotional trepidation. That is long
since gone. Now the trepidation is entirely practical; it puts off the idiots we need to get through
to. It is an entirely accurate term for the regime.
No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism.
Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when
the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most
Jews lost faith in communism.
After Stalin, the Russians removed Jews (and many other aliens) from their former heights of
power in the USSR. That didn't win them any (((friends))). More to the point, Putin brought (((the
oligarchs))) to heel, and reversed all their (((important work))). That's when the (((hate)))
really started for Russia.
It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition of fascism
being 'the use of power without any ideology'.
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs
And you will most certainly ignore:
Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
and:
The Zionist attempt to control language.
The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
and:
The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
and:
Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
and:
Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook
Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back.
The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed
at the beginning.
Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with
extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication
points throughout the country."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
and:
Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
and:
IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
Read more:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/
'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg
You proved nothing about 90+ synagogues in Moscow. You only parroted Shamir. For all I know the
rest of your claim might be right. I don't know one way or the other whether your other links
are right, nor do I care. That's why I didn't respond to them, nor am I under any compulsion to.
@Anon You proved nothing about 90+ synagogues in Moscow. You only parroted Shamir. For all
I know the rest of your claim might be right. I don't know one way or the other whether your other
links are right, nor do I care. That's why I didn't respond to them, nor am I under any compulsion
to.
Because you're wrong and are too much an intellectual cripple to admit it. And that's why I
have beaten you in every debate. The list is rather large as I'm sure you remember.
I dodged nothing because I saw nothing.
How's your "English Literature" class going? LOL!!
@Anon The real reason is that the Russians are a convenient cover-up for Democratic incompetence.
It is an alternate reality to convince the base and the sponsors that Hillary lost the election
because she was co-opted by the Red Tide.
Dems really think that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the DNC emails and give it to Wikileaks.
It really is a mental illness at this point.
They wanted Comey fired, but when Trump did it, it was obstruction. They wanted a Special Prosecutor,
but now are worried that he may not find anything. They believe the incessant hysteria is whipping
up their base and will guarantee the House in the 2018 election. Hope they crash and burn in 2018.
Exactly, good point.
Like when Zionists claim that scrutiny of the '6M Jews, 5M other & gas chambers' is hateful
to Jews.
Forgetting that making such claims in the first place is hateful to Germans and to Gentiles who
Jews claim 'let it happen'.
Count me with the Russians, too. Non self hating whites in America are stateless and behind
enemy lines. We are told the nation belongs to every racial and religious group except those of
the founding racial stock (Christian or not). We have laws promoting and protecting most non-white
racial groups at the expense of the white majority. Our history is being rewritten to cast aspersions
on our founding and villainize great white men who built America while lionizing non-whites who
did next to nothing.
(((Hollywood))) movies and television shows depict whites as either corrupt, vapid, moronic
or untrustworthy compared to non-whites and generally dehumanize us and foment racial hatred against
us. The golden rule in politics is that white politicians are strictly forbidden from acknowledging
whites as a group let alone show any sympathy or compassion for them or working on their behalf.
Donald Trump has only done so half heartedly and implicitly and he's derided as a white supremacist
24/7 and as "un-American" while facing calls to resign simply for enforcing immigration laws and
failing to take a wrecking ball to the last vestiges of the old, white America.
This is conquest and occupation, not progress as the (((authors))) of all these trends inform
us. With a straight face. Everything most of us loved and held dear has been destroyed by the
JOG and remade in their vile image and likeness.
Therefore, if Putin were to invade the U.S. this would be cause for celebration for the embattled
and shrinking white majority. We would have nothing to lose. This nation betrayed us long ago
and no longer deserves our loyalty, support or affection.
The pot bellied, "race doesn't matter" patriotards and antifa scumbags can have it.
@Wally And that's why I have beaten you in every debate. The list is rather large as I'm sure
you remember.
I dodged nothing because I saw nothing.
How's your "English Literature" class going? LOL!! You clearly have no interest in debate.
Challenged on an intellectual debate, you wilt. Enjoy yourself.
@Priss Factor The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and
it does not cater to gays. Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for
the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism
with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.
No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism.
Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when the
truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most Jews
lost faith in communism.
Some still had nostalgia for Old Idealism and did credit USSR for having defeated Nazi Germany,
but few Jews were communist by the 80s when Soviet Union entered into its death throes. Also,
the New Left of the 60s was more about drugs and rock n roll than revolution.
Also, the Soviet Union became gentile-dominated by the late 30s, and after WWII, especially
as Zionists in Israel chose US over USSR, Jews came under increasing suspicion and even discrimination
in the communist world. Initially, Stalin installed many Jewish communists in Eastern European
nations, but after the fallout over Israel, many were purged as 'Zionists'.
So, most Jews welcomed the fall of the USSR. If anything, Jews used finance-capitalism to amass
control of much of Russian resources.
And in the 90s, most powerful Jews did everything in their power to make sure the Russian Communist
Party would not be come to power. They pulled every dirty trick in the book to ensure Yeltsin
winning another term.
Those were the good ole days for Jews in Russia. And if they had been less greedy, they may have
kept the power. But they grabbed too much loot and turned a blind eye to all the suffering, and
this gave an opening to the Russian nationalists(mild though they may be). Mild nationalists like
Putin didn't purge Jews, but he sent a message that Russia would no longer be a 'vacationland
for Jewish lawyers in love'.
So, Jews tried various means to crack Russian nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and sovereignty.
They used Pussy Riot and Homomania. They didn't work.
So, the main reason for anti-Russianism has nothing to do with communism. The problem for Jews
is that Russia rejects globalism or at least globalist domination. Jewish power is centered on
globalism. Nationalism is anathema to Jews because it means that the national elites should represent,
defend, and serve their national masses. All nations except Israel is majority gentile. So, nationalism
makes national gentile elites grow closer to national gentile masses. This accounts for mass support
for Putin in Russia.
In contrast, under globalism, the national elites serve globalist elites than their national
people, and that means national leaders serve Soros and his ilk than their own folk.
Now, you'd think that the masses would rebel against the leaders if for treason, but Public
Education and Pop Culture have brainwashed tons of masses too. Look at all the white dummies in
the US who support globalism that is actually hurting them. And they would rather side with Diversity(invasion)
than with their own hurting kind.
These whites attack Trump for opposing mass invasion of the US by More Diversity.
Why would they want to invaded and be made into a minority people? They've been mentally-colonized
by the Glob Virus. 60′s Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.
The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized
abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural"
Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of
"me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak
and pathetic
Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
desires
Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence.
@ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly
diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed
in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?
"Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? "
Here we are.
Don't look for leadership from the Whore of Babylon.
All of these "hierarchical" churches are pyramids of power in the Beast System.
Authority among men is on a level field; with the Word of God- Jesus of the scriptures- as
King.
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never
was.
As most people understand the term, American identity refers to the racial and cultural characteristics
of the people.
American identity has, since the nation's inception, been chiefly European and Christian. Today,
the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction
(induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education) and mass replacement immigration.
The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what
you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to
do the same to their people. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated "In an "America" which no longer has a definable
culture, language, ethnos, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?"
His proceeding argument is built on a false premise. We clearly have these things. Then, we
have you doubling down. The American identity refers to a host of traits that reflect its citizens.
Initially, our nation was predicated on several European ethnic groups who held different faiths.
Africans were imported. Tribal groups were removed by force for white settlement. Gradually, the
Germans, the Irish, the Assyrians, the Mexicans, the Vietnamese, and the Nigerians immersed themselves
into what is an American. We are a nation of mutts.
"Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive
dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education)."
Did it ever occur to you that tens of millions of whites are other than brainwashed, that they
created an educational system that represents their beliefs and values?
" mass replacement immigration."
No.
"The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it
what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites
to do the same to their people."
There is observably no genocide taking place here in the States. Your Alt Right talking point
is tiresome to say the least.
@Anon You clearly have no interest in debate. Challenged on an intellectual debate, you wilt.
Enjoy yourself. Problem is that you're not an intellectual. Not in the slightest. Dream on.
@jilles dykstra If any state in the world is sovereign it is the USA.
USA military power, and political power still enable the USA to do as it pleases.
All other states in the world are less sovereign, just because of USA power.
What you write about is USA democracy, is what the USA does what the USA people want ?
The election of Trump, though he did not get the popular vote, means in my opinion that a large
part of the USA population is fed up with the establishment politicians.
What USA citizens who did not vote want, I do not know, I wonder if anyone knows.
Just now on Belgian tv was a report on USA citizens who are pro Trump, what they mean by 'making
America great again', not very clear to me.
A USA commentator stated that many Americans do not recognise the present USA as the USA they
knew, or want.
Mentioned was socialism: the welfare state, gays, migrants.
And hostility to establishment politicians. By definition, since the polity of the USA is controlled
by the Izzies, it can not be a sovereign state.
It is a bizarre colonial posession of Israel. So, by your argument, Israel is the only truly
sovereign state.
@Stonehands 60's Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.
The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized
abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural"
Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of
"me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak
and pathetic...
Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
desires...
Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence. The
likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion)
led the charge through the institutions.
Not true. The hardline feminists turned on Friedan.
Sontag went her own way and didn't involve herself much with institutions. She was too independent
to be academic hack.
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs
And you will most certainly ignore:
Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
and:
The Zionist attempt to control language.
The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
and:
The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
and:
Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
and:
Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook
Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back.
The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed
at the beginning.
Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with
extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication
points throughout the country."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
and:
Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
and:
IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
Read more:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/
'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg
In view of the contents of your last link, you may be interested in this :
https://eonic1.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/the-dumb-american-poem/
@Stonehands 60's Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.
The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized
abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural"
Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of
"me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak
and pathetic...
Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
desires...
Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence. " An all-knowing
judge/creator"
Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler
and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future
victims.
Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of
the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
@Corvinus Mr. Kirkpatrick stated "In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture,
language, ethnos, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?"
His proceeding argument is built on a false premise. We clearly have these things. Then, we
have you doubling down. The American identity refers to a host of traits that reflect its citizens.
Initially, our nation was predicated on several European ethnic groups who held different faiths.
Africans were imported. Tribal groups were removed by force for white settlement. Gradually, the
Germans, the Irish, the Assyrians, the Mexicans, the Vietnamese, and the Nigerians immersed themselves
into what is an American. We are a nation of mutts.
"Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive
dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education)."
Did it ever occur to you that tens of millions of whites are other than brainwashed, that they
created an educational system that represents their beliefs and values?
"...mass replacement immigration."
No.
"The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it
what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites
to do the same to their people."
There is observably no genocide taking place here in the States. Your Alt Right talking point
is tiresome to say the least. I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in
the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people
by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired
judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise
this controversial interpretation in Australia.)
As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So ..
Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism
and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by
importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion
of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important.
Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al
@jilles dykstra It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition
of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'. Just keeping it real from inside the
D.C. operations and from folk's in power!
@Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly
controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping
out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge
with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial
interpretation in Australia.)
As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....
Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism
and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by
importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion
of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important.
Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ... Stop being gentle and delicate with
the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born
White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal .Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them they would view
it as genocide
America is not a proposition nation and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day 365 days a year as
Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class .Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions .and Rampage 82
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82 my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands .my cousin committed suicide three years
later .Oh my God what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen I know some of the emergency
room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning .there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82 " go by it read it ..
The alleged patriotism of the US Congress (and Olderman, Maddow, and other hysterical "progressives")
and the reality of meddling into the US affairs, as documented by the facts:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/19/the-open-secret-of-foreign-lobbying/
"When AIPAC director Morris Amitay was caught red-handed mishandling classified missile secrets
in 1975, he could have been prosecuted under FARA. When AIPAC and an Israeli diplomat purloined
the entire 300-page book of classified trade secrets compiled from 70 U.S. industry groups opposed
to unilateral trade concessions for Israel in 1984, they could have been prosecuted for failing
to report their clandestine subversion of due process. When in 2005 [AIPAC officials] Steven J.
Rosen and Keith Weissman met with Israeli diplomats during efforts to pass classified information
to the press they thought could trigger a U.S attack on Iran, FARA consequences would have awaited
them all. However, because the U.S. Department of Justice has unilaterally abrogated its responsibility
to enforce FARA, people, ideas, money and propaganda campaigns continue to secretly slosh freely
between Tel Aviv and Israeli fronts in America with taxpayer funds thrown into the toxic brew."
In short, "support the troops" by sending them to fight for Tel Aviv projects.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/05/neocons-protest-us-spying-on-israel/
Meanwhile, the US homeland security is in the Israelis' hands.
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2013/08/21/homeland-security-made-in-israel/
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/US-Deputy-of-Homeland-Security-US-Israel-to-sign-automated-cyber-information-sharing-agreement-457261
@Anon The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and
legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions.
Not true. The hardline feminists turned on Friedan.
Sontag went her own way and didn't involve herself much with institutions. She was too independent
to be academic hack.
Jong was a sexual libertarian, not a PC whore. All 3 women heavily promoted cultural Marxism
and were the products of the Jew commie academic system. They were mentored by the dregs of the
Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse and neocon svengali Leo Strauss, and were responsible for the
kindling of second wave feminism.
If you have any doubts about the open genocidal intent of the Democratic Party
Do the following thought experiment ..What would happen if Richard Spencer incessantly in his
his US College Tour stated emphatically:"WOULDN'T IT BE WONDERFULL IF YOUNG NATIVE BORN WHITE
AMERICAN COUPLES STARTED HAVING LARGE WHITE FAMILIES .so Native Born White Americans can go back
to being a 90 racial minority in America again!!!!"
How would Melissa Harris Perry react?
How would Maxine Waters react?
How would the TATA Institute grads react?
How would Ciela Munoz react?
How would the smelly hairy bulldyke Hillary Clinton react?
Paul Kersey
Go buy Rampage 82 .."Oh my God what they did to that waitress" .this is what the Greek owner
of the restaurant next to Walt Whitman High School said to me several years ago .the restaurant
by the Colonial Era..historic grave yard that the Salvadoran youth trample over disrespectefully
every morning on their way to Walt Whitman High School ..West Hills area
@Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly
controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping
out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge
with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial
interpretation in Australia.)
As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....
Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism
and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by
importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion
of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important.
Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ... "I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's
use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide"
which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and
coherent culture."
CanSpeccy employed that term with the intent of bastardizing its use for his own demonic ends.
"As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So .."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter, even if it is not relevant here.
@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it...
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it
as genocide...
America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a
year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions....and Rampage 82...
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years
later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of
the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's
vagina's...
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82..."...go by it read it..... "Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class."
The only thing creepy are your numerous sock puppets–Anonym and Anon, for starters.
"America is not a proposition nation "
Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular,
"Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks
and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It
is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic
legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal
principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative
form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization "
By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it,
to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants
must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores.
@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it...
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it
as genocide...
America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a
year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions....and Rampage 82...
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years
later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of
the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's
vagina's...
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82..."...go by it read it..... I grew up in Glen Cove, l remember that hideous event- it was life
changing
on LI.
In addition, there was a mad scramble by restaurants to install windows everywhere; the old
style of hospitality featured privacy.
The thought that rampaging niggers would take advantage of these circumstances was beyond anyone's
scope of the imagination at the time.
@Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly
controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping
out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge
with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial
interpretation in Australia.)
As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....
Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism
and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by
importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion
of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important.
Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ...
I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial
and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence
as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the
elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely
arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.
The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government
directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)
as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass
immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example,
are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for
at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where
English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban
centers throughout Europe and North America.
Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler
and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future
victims.
Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of
the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician. You are correct.
Free will is paramount.
And with that free will we are given autonomy and responsibility for our actions.
Jesus said not to fear the first death.
Accounts will be settled at the final judgement.
Your actions will be tossed into a crucible and will burn like wood, hay or stubble (self-
aggrandizement) or they will be refined like Gold if done for Jesus' sake.
Hey man, l am just stonehands. I say crazy, ardent statements that may turn you off to this
message.
But please consider the great men of history- such as Bach- who wrote "Jesu Joy of Mans Desire";
who also added the addendum:
"ALL MUSIC is for the greater glory of God and the refreshment of the mind"
I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors
fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so
much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty
of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?
@Stonehands I grew up in Glen Cove, l remember that hideous event- it was life changing
on LI.
In addition, there was a mad scramble by restaurants to install windows everywhere; the old
style of hospitality featured privacy.
The thought that rampaging niggers would take advantage of these circumstances was beyond anyone's
scope of the imagination at the time. As you know Glen Cove has been completely colonized by El
Salavodor and Mexico
Glen Cove used to be a beautifull North Shore Town
I used to go to that health food store down past the firehouse that used to proudly display
the great big Convederate Flag in the firetruck bays .
Interestingly Tom Suozzi's uncle was the Mayor of Glenn Cove and got trashed by Newday for
cracking down on the Mexicans and Salvadoran illegals .his nephew Tom the Cockroach is onboard
with importing the nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc .and war with Christian Russia
Congressman Tom Suozzi a creepy looking short Italian with cornrows of hairplugs and platforms
in his shoes .and speaks with a lisp
@Corvinus "Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open
genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class."
The only thing creepy are your numerous sock puppets--Anonym and Anon, for starters.
"America is not a proposition nation..."
Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular,
"Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks
and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It
is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic
legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal
principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative
form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."
By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it,
to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants
must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores. Oh shut the fuck up you
libertarian Cuck as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown ..wrinkly and old .the
demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days .
"The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington,
D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law
enforcement sources told Fox News.
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer
Seth Rich's computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks
through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker,
and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time Okay, so where's the computer?
Who's got Rich's computer? Let's do the forensic work and get on with it.
But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren't interested in such matters
because it doesn't fit with their political agenda. They'd rather take pot-shots at Fox for running
an article that doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking story.
Murray should be the government's star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even
knows who he is. But if we trust what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking
story is baloney. The emails were "leaked" by insiders not "hacked" by a foreign government. Here's
the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:
"Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from
a "disgruntled" Democrat upset with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the
Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community .He (Murray) appears to have undertaken
a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25
visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University.
With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you'd think that Murray's eyewitness
account would be headline news, but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from
the front page as humanly possible. Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray)
who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far, they've showed no
interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?"
"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian
slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own
country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case
they are dangerous and corrupt."
What Putin said yesterday:
"Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case
they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
Putin was being tactful, obviously.
Clearly, what he meant was that the US is now dominated by dangerously corrupt people. The
same is true of virtually all states in all times. What is unusual about America today is the
scale of harm that the US plutocracy is in a position to inflict, and is indeed inflicting, on
both Americans and the world.
@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it...
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it
as genocide...
America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a
year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions....and Rampage 82...
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years
later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of
the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's
vagina's...
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82..."...go by it read it.....
Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus
Yes, there is certainly something weird about Corvy. I have sometimes wondered if he might
be an early CIA implementation of an artificially intelligent (sort of) propaganda bot, with the
"agent provocateur" function enabled. The AP function would explain the repeated demands to know
what someone opposed to European genocide proposes to do about it: bomb throwing being, presumably,
the desired response, leading to arrest and incarceration under anti-terrorism laws.
One has to wonder though, whether Corvy's Euro-Holocaust denial should be tolerated. If he
were denying the Jewish Holocaust he would be censored here, or if not, probably targeted for
some kind of legal sanction, as would only be right. Why then should he be free to spew his anti-European
hatred here?
And...with that free will we are given autonomy and responsibility for our actions.
Jesus said not to fear the first death.
Accounts will be settled at the final judgement.
Your actions will be tossed into a crucible and will burn like wood, hay or stubble (self-
aggrandizement)...or they will be refined like Gold if done for Jesus' sake.
Hey man, l am just stonehands. I say crazy, ardent statements that may turn you off to this
message.
But please consider the great men of history- such as Bach- who wrote "Jesu Joy of Mans Desire";
who also added the addendum:
"ALL MUSIC is for the greater glory of God and the refreshment of the mind" First of all, myself
a graduate of classical flute study with Bach as a center focus, I am most certainly more versed
within his, Bach's, artistic accomplishments than you could probably imagine, and point is : He
was trying to survive in an age of absolute enslavement by the aristocratic PTB, therefore he
had no choice but to pen his works in a religious vein if he wanted to continue eating, and this
holds true for all of the Baroque/classical composers.
Now as to whether he believed the dogma, within which his works were set, this is up for speculation,
and you, me or nobody else can state that he was or was not a pious advocate of religious ideas.
And as far as "ALL MUSIC" being for the greater glory of God, and refreshment of the mind : I
agree with the "Refreshment of the mind" aspect, however being a confirmed atheist, I am unable
to go along with the "Greater glory of God" approach.
I can say this much, when engaged within the action of performing/inprovising music within the
jazz idiom, and attempting to create so-called "swinging" solos, there are no thoughts entering
my mind regarding the "Greater glory of God, rather my focus is upon the moment and the effort
at hand : Making it, the music, swing.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz artist.
@Corvinus "I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly
controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping
out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture."
CanSpeccy employed that term with the intent of bastardizing its use for his own demonic ends.
"As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So .."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter, even if it is not relevant here.
"Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is..."
Maybe. Or maybe not. "not relevant here". Fair enough unless you are willing to allow in these
often discursive conversations an attempt to lead people on a path of thought which will spark
tecognition – in this case perhaps of the loss of much that used to bind even if it wasn't an
essential eternal part of human existence.
@Steve Naidamast I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot
of holes in its foundations.
To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is
a bit absurd.
No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills
for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good
measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).
Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States.
His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental
positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency,
his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy,
and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many
other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of
a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all
shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.
As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking
what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American
history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.
Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the
winners are always the highest bidders.
Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for
Southern Independence.
America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their
way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out
of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason;
he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America
in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never
was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but
one to protect the wealthy and their needs.
There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself
while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward
spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to
protect the White privileged classes.... "The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the
complete degeneracy of th electorate
So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white
house.
Look friend you are labeling myself, my sister and my upstanding, decent, friends and family
who in fact did pull the lever for DT as : Degenerate.
You are the "degenerate" malevolent one here and you have no clue as to what you are blathering
about.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa"society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial
and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence
as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the
elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely
arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.
The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government
directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)
as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass
immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example,
are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for
at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where
English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban
centers throughout Europe and North America. At least Leicester has got a lot of successful Indians
has it not (many ex East Africa I believe)? By chance I had dinner tonight at a Two Fat Indians
restaurant, not nearly as cheap as in the UK but also no fat Indians but a couple of gorgeous
smiling smart young women from Punjab. I wouldn't want all our immigration of the relatively smart
to be Chinese, though I welcome them, so it tended to confirm my relatively optimistic view about
Australia's population. Clearly native white Australians are breeding almost as dysgenically as
outback Aborigines and Lebanese immugrants from 40 yeats ago so I see the Chinese and Indians
who have often been educated in Australia as making up for that. It is curious however that our
school PISA ranking has declined in the last 10 years or so. I suspect parties of the left and
teacher unions though another cause for puzzling over it is that a larger proportion of children
get their education in non government schools in Australia than almost anywhere in the First World.
I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial
and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence
as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the
elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely
arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.
The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government
directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)
as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass
immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example,
are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for
at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where
English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban
centers throughout Europe and North America. "But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded
policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide
or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny."
Clearly your fixation on something that does not observable exist, chiefly the extermination
of whites in the "West" by elites and their toadies, is a trait of you as an aspie. I have nothing
personal against your affliction. I just find it fascinating that you rinse and repeat this phenomenon.
"The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement "
Another one of your obsessions. Modern married white couples rarely look at their situation
in this fashion. They have children. They will take care of them as best they are able. Tens of
thousands of mothers and fathers assuredly are not going to be badgered by you and your ilk into
thinking about ensuring the viability of the "white race" by having more babies. Have you met
your obligation here? Do you have at least five white offspring? Have you properly indoctrinated,
I mean discussed, of their future duty?
(consistent with government directed sex "education,")
Yes, sex education. A product of our society. The decision made by citizens. A fact of life.
"plus no-fault divorce"
Yes, no-fault divorce. A product of our society. The decision made by citizens. A fact of life.
"and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)"
Finally, we agree. This is a big deal.
"as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of
mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population."
NOT genocide. Mass immigration has been a historical and global phenomenon. Nations sent colonists
to explore. The undesired and unwanted left their home countries and, as immigrants, arrived to
other parts of the globe. Immigration policies were informal or formal, and they varied from nation
to nation. Furthermore, there always has been some level of augmentation in a nation's population.
The British helped to found the American colonies; other Europeans, along with Africans and Asians
and Latin Americans, arrived there, either voluntarily or by force. The British were "replaced"
in the fact they were no longer the dominant group to control the region, and that they increasingly
intermarried with non-British. This ethnic "mixing" had been considered taboo in Europe (except
among the elite to secure their power and authority), but in America it became the rule.
"Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester
where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham
(England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary
school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America."
Tragic. But a fact of life. I suggest you run for political office. Make a difference in England,
your home nation. Promote what you believe in.
"Yes, there is certainly something weird about Corvy. I have sometimes wondered if he might
be an early CIA implementation of an artificially intelligent (sort of) propaganda bot, with the
"agent provocateur" function enabled."
From what I've been told by a good friend who does work for this organization, the CIA has
been targeting you since you were eight years old. They have a dossier on you and your family.
You have been on notice for decades given your "pro-race is code for anti-humanity" mindset.
"One has to wonder though, whether Corvy's Euro-Holocaust denial should be tolerated."
Of course it should be "tolerated". In fact, it should be relished and replicated by other
posters here to expose your lies and propaganda. There is no "Euro-Holocaust". That is Fake News.
I'm sure at some point in time the CIA will engage in psycho-ops and reprogram you.
"Why then should he be free to spew his anti-European hatred here?"
False characterization. I am "spewing" my love for the human race. Unfortunately, there are
people who are bitter and lost.
@War for Blair Mountain Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck......as you sit in front
of your computer in a white granny gown .....wrinkly and old....the demographic profile of a typical
National Review reader these days.... "Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck as you sit in
front of your computer in a white granny gown ..wrinkly and old .the demographic profile of a
typical National Review reader these days ."
Are your sock puppets on eight hour or daily shifts?
Now, regarding my posterity comment, do you have a rebuttal?
@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it...
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it
as genocide...
America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a
year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions....and Rampage 82...
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years
later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of
the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's
vagina's...
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82..."...go by it read it..... That's why militias were formed to take care of the wild dogs that
roam thru society Join one today..
@Aaron8765 I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and
whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt
that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight
for this country?
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in
the comment section.
Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think
most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.
While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.
It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are.
I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is,
actually doing.
One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the
following material they've posted on their website:
This is America.This is ADL. (NB – disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking
individuals)
The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These
differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave
the fabric of our pluralistic society.
For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept
by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's
premier human relations and civil rights organization.
If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote
diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's
leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition
benefits are available to Corporate Partners.
More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity.
They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."
Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the
perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression – promoting a policy of diversity, while
damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.
While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic.
Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of
diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's
position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend
the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many
goyim – i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism one cannot
favour both at the same time.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up
their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors
to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from
promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this
this film will not have a happy ending.
-----
P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's
why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice
of life."
@War for Blair Mountain Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck......as you sit in front
of your computer in a white granny gown .....wrinkly and old....the demographic profile of a typical
National Review reader these days.... Waste of time, really, responding to the troll for the replacement
of Euro-Americans. It only initiates another spew of hate speech. According to Corvy, there's
something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being
against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism.
Wiz Oz is not quite so crude about it, but seems to think its fine for the English people of
the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare,
Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
There are something like a billion Hindus in India, so why should they occupy the tiny homeland
of the English? England, it is true, ruled India for a while, no doubt over the objection of the
Indian ruling class, but in doing so they merely replaced another and more exploitive alien ruling
elite, and at no time attempted to settle India with millions of Europeans. Indeed they set out,
from the time of
Macaulay's memorandum on Indian Education, dated Feb 2nd, 1835 , to prepare India for self-government
as the modern, independent, democratic nation state that it now is.
@Stonehands All 3 women heavily promoted cultural Marxism and were the products of the Jew
commie academic system. They were mentored by the dregs of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse
and neocon svengali Leo Strauss, and were responsible for the kindling of second wave feminism.
Sontag's main place wasn't in the academia. She was essentially a person of letters.
Friedan is credited with second-wave feminism, but it would have happened anyway without her.
The media just needed someone as 'leader'.
Jong was attacked by feminists. I'm not gonna defend her horny crap, but she' s not part of
long march through institutions.
Also, these are more the products of capitalism. They have nothing to with Marxism. This term
'cultural marxism' should really be called 'cultural consumerism'.
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section.
Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most
people are coming from on the issue you've raised.
While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.
It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are.
I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is,
actually doing.
One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the
following material they've posted on their website:
This is America.This is ADL. (NB - disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking
individuals)
The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These
differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave
the fabric of our pluralistic society.
For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept
by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's
premier human relations and civil rights organization.
If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote
diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's
leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition
benefits are available to Corporate Partners.
More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity.
They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."
Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the
perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression - promoting a policy of diversity, while
damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.
While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic.
Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of
diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's
position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend
the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many
goyim - i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism... one cannot
favour both at the same time.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up
their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors
to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from
promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this
this film will not have a happy ending.
-------------
P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's
why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice
of life."
while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend
the idea of an ethno-state in the ME.
well said Geo,
we've all seen this genocidal hag shilling for the destruction of the West
no reasonable person blames all Jews for this evil that only a few of them are perpetrating,
(with the eager assistance of many goys [homos and fat, ugly white women and other malcontents]
who want the migrants to come for their own reasons, just like corporate/business interests who
want to pay lower wages in general)
but the destruction of Europe and N. America by massive and transformational immigration is,
at heart- being foisted by Jewish sludge like Sheldon Adelson, who demands open borders for the
US, and uses his money to buy cucks in the Republican party to ensure that he gets just that,
but then also uses his ill-gotten gains to promote racial purity in Israel, where his newspapers
call all non-Jewish immigrants – invaders.
So you're right. It's the raging hypocrisy and demonic, Old Testament hatred for all non-Jewish
tribes and the efforts to see all white nations founder under racial and ethnic hatred and strife,
while simultaneously advocating for a racially pure state in Israel- that makes a lot of people
exasperated with Jewish influence and nefarious intrigues.
There are of course other stuff too. Fomenting and foisting wars, false flag attacks, financial
swindles, cultural sewage, etc.. But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience
is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only)
white countries that outs (some of) them as existential enemies.
@Aaron8765 I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and
whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt
that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight
for this country?
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in
the comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely,
would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.
Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this . Anti-European
advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish
ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism
and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.
I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact
that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process
of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies
and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The
role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews,
but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring
anti-Semitism.
Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions
or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter,
or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups,
black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.
@Authenticjazzman First of all, myself a graduate of classical flute study with Bach as a
center focus, I am most certainly more versed within his, Bach's, artistic accomplishments than
you could probably imagine, and point is : He was trying to survive in an age of absolute enslavement
by the aristocratic PTB, therefore he had no choice but to pen his works in a religious vein if
he wanted to continue eating, and this holds true for all of the Baroque/classical composers.
Now as to whether he believed the dogma, within which his works were set, this is up for speculation,
and you, me or nobody else can state that he was or was not a pious advocate of religious ideas.
And as far as "ALL MUSIC" being for the greater glory of God, and refreshment of the mind : I
agree with the "Refreshment of the mind" aspect, however being a confirmed atheist, I am unable
to go along with the "Greater glory of God" approach.
I can say this much, when engaged within the action of performing/inprovising music within the
jazz idiom, and attempting to create so-called "swinging" solos, there are no thoughts entering
my mind regarding the "Greater glory of God, rather my focus is upon the moment and the effort
at hand : Making it, the music, swing.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz artist. I own a small restaurant where l occassionally feature solo artists or duets, myself
included. I have been playing classical/jazz guitar for 45 years. I recently performed for Jason
Vieaux [2016 solo classical Grammy award] and friends, and one of the pieces l played was "Jesu."
He agreed that my original transcription [key of G] and fingering were unique and pleasing to
the ear and probably easier to commit to memory then the Rick Foster or Christopher Parkening
renditions; we're talking non- stop double and triple stops here!
As per Christianity; you may believe there is no God (that's your faith and hope) but
you cannot confirm it.
@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the
Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional
war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the
ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the
Russian expeditionary force regularly use.
Unfortunately Trump will have to
kill some Russians now
. Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because
the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and
Iraq. What makes you think Assad is an idiot? He seems more intelligent than most politicians,
journalists, and politicians in Washington, D.C. (I cringe at having to name the place. It's like
speaking Orc-language in Rivendell.)
Millions of Americans, having been raised on TV propaganda, still have a screaming need to
feel superior to everyone – except perhaps the Israelis.
The government of the USA has marked Putin for destruction. But I think the rest of the world
is rooting for him, and the Russian people, to survive the American onslaught.
While the "progressives" badmouth bad-bad russkies for "destroying our democracy," an obscene
spectacle of persecution of the most important whistleblower of our times continues.
"Getting Assange: the Untold Story," by JOHN PILGER
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/getting-assange-the-untold-story/
"Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter
and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed, "Can't we just drone this guy."
According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington's bid to get Assange is "unprecedented in
scale and nature." In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years
to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. Assange's ability to defend himself
in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret.
In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the "national
security" investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was "active and ongoing" and would harm
the "pending prosecution" of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to
show "appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security." This is a kangaroo
court."
@Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater
to gays.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they
are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running
the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.
The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment
of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block,
and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total
madness.
"Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience
to even elaborate thereon.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz artist.
PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style
Jazz players coming out of Russia.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and
they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia
running the show
I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm
at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because
they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia
refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but
they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was,
if not more so.
I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship
of the proletariat. Have you?
It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions
about global Marxism.
@ThereisaGod This comment reflects the mindless nationalism of a person who has spent too
much time reading mainstream Zionist propaganda.
The USA INSTIGATED the Syrian "revolution". It armed and funded the rebels (Al Qaeda) and told
them we would support them. The Assad government had NO CHOICE but to act as they did or die,
handing Syria over to friends of Israel who would then set about dismantling the defences of the
Shias in the region who effectively oppose the racist state of Israel.
As this article lays out, American patriots should be supporting Russia and Assad. If these countries
fall to international finance (as the entire western world has done) the Washington swamp will
turn its full attention to destroying the USA in a similar manner to the Soviets destruction of
Christian Russia (it's the same people, folks. The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives).
Sean. Your comment is, umm ...... confused.
The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives
I hear this all the time. I know that many Trotskyists morphed into neocons but that's not
quite the same as saying that Trotskyists are neocons are identical. Trotsky may have been a heretical
communist but he was still a communist. Are neocons actual communists? In what way are they actual
communists?
@ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly
diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed
in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?
Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?
In the West Christian leaders are not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. They're
liberals. They're not liberal Christians, they're just liberals.
In Russia they take Christianity a bit more seriously. In Russia Christian leaders actually
believe in God (which is extremely rare among western Christian leaders).
The problem with Christianity is that once you take away belief in God what you're left with
really is just liberalism.
@Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty
Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall,
they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in.
General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening
Russia.
There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main
Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great
Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas . Your comment is totally
senseless!
Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler
and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future
victims.
Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of
the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician. @why did he not rethink
Did that false 'judge/creator' not know that he would be taken to task by an Authenticjazzman,
the 'authentic' judge of what God should or should not do as to not displease his 'Authenticity'?
So, he is not all-knowing. QED.
@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. How exactly did Reagan biggest
mistake was amnesty? Explain and give some examples, please.
@Alden Id just like to point out that the reason so many Chinese are giving tech and military
secrets to China is my personal bete noire affirmative action. Were it not for affirmative action
those military and tech secrets would be in the hands of White Americans, not foreign spies whose
only qualification that they are not White. Regardless of ethnicity, these spies deserve the death
penalty, for treason to the people who gave them the welcome into our land. As for "white christian",
Christianity is either underground or dying, thanks to the power of the sons of the devil, as
told by Iesous Christos, (greek), (John 8:44-45 King James Version (KJV)
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh
a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
So now we know that 'churchianity' has become a den of thieves, and a cave of robbers, teaching
that whom Christ called sons of the devil, Churchianity teaches that they are the children of
god. What a contradiction by those who profess to represent Christ!
@Anon Sontag's main place wasn't in the academia. She was essentially a person of letters.
Friedan is credited with second-wave feminism, but it would have happened anyway without her.
The media just needed someone as 'leader'.
Jong was attacked by feminists. I'm not gonna defend her horny crap, but she' s not part of
long march through institutions.
Also, these are more the products of capitalism. They have nothing to with Marxism. This term
'cultural marxism' should really be called 'cultural consumerism'. "They have nothing to do with
communism"
Bullshit they have everything to do with communism, as all, without exception, all of these
characters are hoping and waiting for the transformation of capitalism to marxism, and they, as
stupid and naive as they are, they think that they will be running the show thereafter, when fact
is they will be the first to be purged.
You simply have no insight, and you are in above your head with these themes.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they
are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running
the show
I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm
at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because
they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia
refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but
they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was,
if not more so.
I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship
of the proletariat. Have you?
It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions
about global Marxism. "I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the
US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism.
The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international
bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
Agree.
@annamaria "I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today
have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians
are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers,
and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
Agree. " They serve the interests of global capitalism"
Right and "global capitalism" serves the interests of global marxism, and you are unable to
decifer the connections, which is your own shortcoming, and does not change the situation.
Almost all of the honchos involved in big-money are in essence : marxists, and they are plotting
and waiting for the shift to collectivism.
Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when
they could have simply left things are they were.
I know it is very hard for most people to imagine big-time capitalists as communists, but it
is fact.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz musician.
I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors
fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is
so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There
are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight
for this country?
No, I won't reject you. That would be actual anti-Semitism, and would make no sense. But if
you follow the usual pattern, and spend more time fighting critics of Jewry than you do fighting
the Jews who deserve critiquing, then yeah, I've no use for you.
Basically I expect pro-White Jews to join the White Tribe, and put the Jewish Tribe at the
back of the bus, or better yet, off the bus altogether (other than some special cases, I don't
even see why most of them would even need to announce (or even hold) their Jewish identity; it's
not like anyone's going to put you on the rack and force you to confess it – Jewish identity
is something you can reject or opt out of).
As for those special cases: the most valuable thing a pro-White Jew can do is go into his own
(former?) tribe and fight Whites' enemies there. You guys have a calling of epic importance waiting
for you, if you'll have it.
We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous
are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and hence
more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against both of
these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the weaker
party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign policy
is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an interesting
question- the policy is clearly in error.
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section.
Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most
people are coming from on the issue you've raised.
While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.
It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are.
I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is,
actually doing.
One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the
following material they've posted on their website:
This is America.This is ADL. (NB - disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking
individuals)
The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These
differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave
the fabric of our pluralistic society.
For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept
by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's
premier human relations and civil rights organization.
If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote
diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's
leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition
benefits are available to Corporate Partners.
More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity.
They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."
Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the
perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression - promoting a policy of diversity, while
damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.
While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic.
Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of
diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's
position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend
the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many
goyim - i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism... one cannot
favour both at the same time.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up
their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors
to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from
promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this
this film will not have a happy ending.
-------------
P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's
why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice
of life." I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that
is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed
vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren
'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have
married outside our religion of birth.
Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal
intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Agreed. Corvinus is a piece of shit. CanSpeccy makes a great point about his "hi fellow kids!"
"yeah but guys where can we buy some dynamite?" federal informant type trolling.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make
up their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its
doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist
from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
Shit or get off the pot, as I like to say. If I may be so bold, I would strike "embrace mono-culturalism
for all nations" from the list of demands. It would certainly be the right thing for Jews to do,
given their embrace of ethnopatriotism for themselves, but I would be satisfied with the demand
(which is non-negotiable, I agree) "immediately cease and desist from promoting the anti-ethnopatriotic
agenda for non-Jewish Whites" being met.
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely,
would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.
Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this . Anti-European
advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish
ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism
and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.
I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact
that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process
of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies
and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The
role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews,
but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring
anti-Semitism.
Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions
or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter,
or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups,
black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.
I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a historical
note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist. You might
find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists of the
20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy,
assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer
in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against
the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with
a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz
was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was
purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others
sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and
the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht
in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help
in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor
for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews.
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely,
would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.
Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this . Anti-European
advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish
ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism
and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.
I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact
that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process
of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies
and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The
role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews,
but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring
anti-Semitism.
Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions
or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter,
or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups,
black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.
oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the 50′s he and the
other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they were not communists.
Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed in academic liberty,
and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something to the effect that he
was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath.
@Aaron8765 oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the
50's he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they
were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed
in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something
to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he
wouldn't take the oath. 'principle' (sic)
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely,
would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.
Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this . Anti-European
advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish
ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism
and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.
I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact
that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process
of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies
and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The
role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews,
but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring
anti-Semitism.
Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions
or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter,
or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups,
black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.
"Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this."
False characterization.
"I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not."
It is evidence of irrational hatred due to a belief that Jews overall engage in the purposeful
destruction of cultures. There is the assumption that diversity/multi-culturalism/tolerance is
the bane of existence, that the Jewish propaganda machine serves as an ethnic and societal meat
grinder. Unwitting people are being brainwashed into promoting these concepts. Except you are
conveniently discounting this important fact human beings have free will. Increasing numbers of
people have made decisions of their own accord about these issues. They embrace these philosophies
for a host of reasons. You are a snake oil salesman of how Cultural Marxism allegedly is murdering
our youth. Let us assume that this Jewish menace would be neutralized. Do you not believe there
would be some other group filling in for that void through their own strategies of indoctrination
and mind control? Perhaps the philosophies you tout would then be force fed down the throats of
the masses.
"According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own
kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define
hate speech and racism."
That's not what I stated. I'm not a fan shall we say of you denigrating wholesale a particular
group and characterizing that same group of being a proponent of genocide. You have every liberty
to protect "your own kind", just as those individuals from "your own kind" have the freedom to
question the reasons why you want those protections as well as how those protections are put in
place. Furthermore, don't you realize there is no such thing as "racism" and "hate speech"? It's
a ruse.
no reasonable person blames all Jews for this evil that only a few of them are perpetrating,
(with the eager assistance of many goys [homos and fat, ugly white women and other malcontents]
who want the migrants to come for their own reasons, just like corporate/business interests who
want to pay lower wages in general)
but the destruction of Europe and N. America by massive and transformational immigration is,
at heart- being foisted by Jewish sludge like Sheldon Adelson, who demands open borders for the
US, and uses his money to buy cucks in the Republican party to ensure that he gets just that,
but then also uses his ill-gotten gains to promote racial purity in Israel, where his newspapers
call all non-Jewish immigrants - invaders.
So you're right. It's the raging hypocrisy and demonic, Old Testament hatred for all non-Jewish
tribes and the efforts to see all white nations founder under racial and ethnic hatred and strife,
while simultaneously advocating for a racially pure state in Israel- that makes a lot of people
exasperated with Jewish influence and nefarious intrigues.
There are of course other stuff too. Fomenting and foisting wars, false flag attacks, financial
swindles, cultural sewage, etc.. But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience
is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only)
white countries that outs (some of) them as existential enemies.
But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience is the psychotic imperative
of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only) white countries
Don't be so sure about some . One hundred percent of Jews serving in both chambers of
Congress have supported efforts at granting mass amnesty of third world illegal aliens. Seventy
to eighty percent consistently vote Democrat no matter how far to the left or anti-white the party
becomes. Even so called conservative (or neocon) Jews like Krauthammer, Bernie Goldberg and others
have voiced support for amnesty or partial amnesty.
So it certainly seems that, based on the evidence, most of them are on board with America
as proposition nation and the race replacement of whites while hypocritically supporting the militant
racial nationalism and exclusivity of the Israeli state.
it certainly seems that, based on the evidence, most of them are on board
I can't argue with that Ken
and you could say the same of all non-white peoples, they're mostly on board for an immigration
policy that will eventually rip white nations apart and see the white people trampled under like
they were in Zimbabwe, or Haiti when the whites received their comeuppance then.
They all seem to hate us, but none more so than Jews
but it is worth pointing out that certainly not all Jews (or other minorities) want us genocided
some can see past their blind racial hatred and envy to the day that whitey is finally ground
under the mire of their collective hatred, to what comes next.
what kind of world will it be without Western civilization and the Rule of Law?
Zimbabwe, Palestine, Darfur, the Balkans, Drug cartels and corruption running S. America outright,
India and Pakistan cutting each other's throats, cannibalism returning to Africa and Indonesian
islands, New Guinea, New Zealand, etc.
And I mention New Zealand, because the only thing protecting the white people (and the meek
of all races) in places like Oceana or Latin America or Africa, the Middle East, etc is the fragile,
amorphous sense of the law , that permeates the jungles and hinterlands of the planet,
where some American expatriate living in Mexico is left unmolested by the cartels and corrupt
governments down there. On the day that whitey is unable to protect his own families in the US,
that is the day that certain ex-patriots in Mexico will find out just how loved they really are
by the Mexicans, who've suffered their arrogance and relative wealth with bitter, quiet, simmering
resentment.
If your society has reached the point where your women and children are brutalized by hostile
invading armies and there's nothing you can do to protect them, and the courts and authorities
will not punish the orcs, then it's only a short distance until the day of Zimbabwe comes and
you're run out of your home in terror for your life.
There was a time when the whites of Zimbabwe could count on England and the rule of law to
protect them. They discovered too late how wrong they were. It will be the same for all white
places when the global system of the Rule of Law breaks down and we return to the law of the jungle
with a vengeance.
how well will Israel fare when there's no more white guilt to milk for funding and arms and
"moral" sanction?
already Norway and other nations are talking about BDS, in part because of the burgeoning Muslim
populations in these countries.
when Europe becomes multicultural, as that Zionist hag insists it must, how well are the Jews
of the world going to prosper when the governments of Europe are Islamized?
@Aaron8765 We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the
most dangerous are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge,
and hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against
both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the
weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign
policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an
interesting question- the policy is clearly in error. Treason in high places: " Not Remembering
the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/
"The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
" Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm
cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship
by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
" The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's
firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun
at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors
to rescue the most seriously wounded."
"Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought
out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President
stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our
government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck,
who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious,
unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their
families"
@Aaron8765 I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If
that is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed
vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren
'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have
married outside our religion of birth.
have married outside our religion of birth
That makes no difference, since being jewish is ultimately a racial category not a religious
one. You don't have to take my word for it, you can research how the state of Israel defines what
a jew is, and it is not on religious grounds. In fact they use the Nuremberg race acts that defined
what a jew was as their own criteria, obviously they will claim they are using it for those fleeing
oppression, but anyone who is sincere about this knows it is because the Nuremberg race acts were
correct in their definitions.
Jimmy, I like reading your but bluing your scripts (doesn't that usually indicate a reference
or example) to send me to a VDARE donation page is tacky. JMO
@Authenticjazzman "The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy
of th electorate
So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white
house.
Look friend you are labeling myself, my sister and my upstanding, decent, friends and family
who in fact did pull the lever for DT as : Degenerate.
You are the "degenerate" malevolent one here and you have no clue as to what you are blathering
about.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa"society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the
white house.
Quite.
Conservatives despair to find that Trump scores only a 1.5 or 2 relative to the ideal 10 they
had hoped for.
However, Hillary would have been a solid and consistent -8 (MINUS EIGHT) or worse. Every day
of Trump – however betrayed Conservatives may feel relative to their ideals – is a day on which
the ALL-OUT DESTRUCTION of America does not proceed with the organized, unopposed vigor that it
would have done under Hillary. (Also known as Mrs. Vincent Foster #2.)
Of course, the lackey MSM are doing their level best to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD)
among those opposed to the oligarchy. Their "Russia hacked the election" complex of lies (aka
"narrative") would certainly have drawn admiring applause from Joseph Goebbels himself, both for
the boldness of the original conception – tapping into old *conservative* mistrust of the USSR,
and for the shameless repetitive execution.
Right now, the U.S. still has remnants of the Second Amendment, which alone is the true,
long-term measure of a free country. (Various states and their complicit federal judges are
working hard to get rid of this final obstacle to billionaire rule and death camps.)
Don't believe that the SECOND Amendment is the true measure of a free country? Spend 6 weeks
in Canada or any other advanced country in Europe, Asia, talk to people, see what they say about
sensitive subjects. Read and watch their MSM and alternative media. Ask yourself where the subject
country was 100 years ago, and where it is likely to be in 100 years.
Has free speech in the subject country been OFFICIALLY curtailed under rubrics such as "hate
speech," "incitement," "libel/slander" etc.? What is the extent of INFORMAL censorship, e.g. through
publishers' associations, codes of conduct, post-modern J-schools and official "certification"
of "journalists," etc.?
What do they/don't the MSM in the subject country report? Secret/informal taboos? Is there
REAL criticism of the power structure? Of existing laws and institutions? Are politicians REALLY
subject to the rule of law? Do they REALLY lock up corrupt politicians as the U.S. used to do?
Are politicians' families exempt from public scrutiny?
Political murder is another indication of the health or otherwise of a free society. Are mysterious
deaths of politicians and their staff commonplace in the subject society? Does interest in major
incidents die down after 2-3 days? Or persist for years (JFK) despite repeated attempts at whitewashing?
@CanSpeccy Waste of time, really, responding to the troll for the replacement of Euro-Americans.
It only initiates another spew of hate speech. According to Corvy, there's something wrong with
those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of
your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism.
Wiz Oz is not quite so crude about it, but seems to think its fine for the English people of
the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare,
Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
There are something like a billion Hindus in India, so why should they occupy the tiny homeland
of the English? England, it is true, ruled India for a while, no doubt over the objection of the
Indian ruling class, but in doing so they merely replaced another and more exploitive alien ruling
elite, and at no time attempted to settle India with millions of Europeans. Indeed they set out,
from the time of
Macaulay's memorandum on Indian Education, dated Feb 2nd, 1835 , to prepare India for self-government
as the modern, independent, democratic nation state that it now is.
Wiz Oz seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced
by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many
other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:
Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions
in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American
experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint
– vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are – are particularly maddening
as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of
Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason
why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations
from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.
@Aaron8765 I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse.
On a historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist.
You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists
of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy,
assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer
in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against
the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with
a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz
was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was
purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others
sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and
the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht
in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help
in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor
for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews. Re: Kantorowicz
Bureaucracies, governmental or academic, hate a non-conformist. I know. I worked (briefly)
for three governments and also held academic appointments at three universities, the last, a tenure-track
appointment, that I abandoned after three days.
The problem for all groups in a multi-cultural society is that group interests are liable to
conflict and thus generate antagonisms that often have a racial or religious aspect. For Jews,
it is worse than for most because they are adherents, or associates by descent, of a religion
that is fundamentally racist. Yahweh, after all, is the God of the Jews, and urges the Jews to
go forth, multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth.
Thus, when Jews succeed as they have done in large numbers in America in gaining positions
of great wealth and power, and especially when they exercise that power for specifically Jewish
interests such as the defense of the state of Israel, they naturally raise feelings of suspicion,
fear and antagonism, as would say a bunch of Russian nationalists if they
ran much
of Hollywood , were
among the principal peddlers of porn in America , had
massive media influence , and held many seats in Congress and used their financial clout to
determine
who holds many of the other seats in Congress .
None of this, of course, alters the fact that it may at times seem tough being a Jew and an
American-firster.
@annamaria Treason in high places: " Not Remembering the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/
"The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
" Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm
cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship
by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
" The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's
firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun
at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors
to rescue the most seriously wounded."
"Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought
out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President
stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our
government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck,
who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious,
unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their
families" WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy
ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did
the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national
importance to Israel?
Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial
WHY of the operation.
Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around
the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite
several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety
and anonymity of retirement since then.
One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off – it is sometimes claimed that the
Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship
with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.
First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea.
Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government.
An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly
within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds
of individuals to propose, prepare and implement.
Right and "global capitalism" serves the interests of global marxism, and you are unable to
decifer the connections, which is your own shortcoming, and does not change the situation.
Almost all of the honchos involved in big-money are in essence : marxists, and they are plotting
and waiting for the shift to collectivism.
Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when
they could have simply left things are they were.
I know it is very hard for most people to imagine big-time capitalists as communists, but it
is fact.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz musician.
Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution,
when they could have simply left things are they were.
Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it. A revolution is a great chance
to loot a country (as the Russians discovered to their cost in the 1990s).
The "moneyed" classes do not believe in marxism because they do not believe in any ideology.
They believe in money and power. Ideologies are for the rubes.
The US is currently making a massive arms deal with the Saudis. Does this mean that the US
moneyed classes have suddenly converted to Islam? No, it means they see a chance to make money.
@Sowhat Jimmy, I like reading your but bluing your scripts (doesn't that usually indicate
a reference or example) to send me to a VDARE donation page is tacky. JMO Mr. What, that "bluing"
is called a hyperlink *. They've been around for well nigh 25 years now by my recollection.
The guy's link is fine, but VDare right now is raising some money, and that "splash" page will
appear on anyone's initial visit, so to speak, to the site right now. If you mash that X in the
right corner, you will get directly to the article that the guy you're replying to wants you to
see.
I hope that helps I would like to AGREE with myself here too, because, as usual, I know I
am right. I don't know how to do that though without joining faceboot or some such crap.
* Here is one, just as a
random example. It'd be interesting to see what happens when you single-click on it. You might
as well now – it'll bug you the rest of the evening if you don't.
@Eagle Eye WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty
spy ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What
did the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national
importance to Israel?
Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial
WHY of the operation.
Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around
the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite
several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety
and anonymity of retirement since then.
One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off - it is sometimes claimed that the
Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship
with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.
First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea.
Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government.
An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly
within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds
of individuals to propose, prepare and implement. "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty
story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been
hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest
no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad
and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write
a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]
is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough.
We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We
have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential
community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:"
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind – that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the
Friends of Israel and such – have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?
Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when
they could have simply left things are they were.
Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it. A revolution is a great chance to
loot a country (as the Russians discovered to their cost in the 1990s).
The "moneyed" classes do not believe in marxism because they do not believe in any ideology.
They believe in money and power. Ideologies are for the rubes.
The US is currently making a massive arms deal with the Saudis. Does this mean that the US
moneyed classes have suddenly converted to Islam? No, it means they see a chance to make money.
" Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it"
Hogwash, this idea is beyond absurd.
What you are saying is that for the purpose of "Making a fast buck" they will support a political/economic
system, namely communism, which has the goal of destroying them , in other words the chickens
are voting for Colonel Sanders.
" The monied classes do not believe in marxism" . Again hogwash, and you would be in a state
of shock if you were able to engage certain billionaires in conversation regarding this issue.
The motivation behind their fixation upon Marxism is their striving to considered as "Intellectuals",
and they are plagued by inferiority complexes regarding their status as "Businessmen", whereas
marxists are looked upon as : "Intellectual".
I was never convinced that rich people were exceptionally intelligent, rather to the contrary.
Wall street being a perfect example of stupidity prevailing amongst millionaires and billionaires.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz artist.
@annamaria "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing
the crucial WHY of the operation."
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been
hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest
no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad
and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write
a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]
is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough.
We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We
have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential
community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind - that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the
Friends of Israel and such - have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has
been hushed for many years.
yep
also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be
blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.
It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you
don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with
hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was
the false flag attack on 9/11 – that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder
people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.
Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced
by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many
other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:
Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions
in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American
experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint
- vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening
as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of
Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason
why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations
from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French. "and it turned out that traditional English
cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled
the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did."
You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons,
the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the
product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the
Enlightenment.
"English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
"One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""
The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher",
considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs
students in this field.
"Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations.
Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's
Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have
sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned
Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive
mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious
and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes
and infrastructural projects. ..
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have
full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria,
women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's
ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still
occupies Syria's Golan Heights).
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values. Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern
Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and
Tel Aviv for decades ."
" considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and
instructs students in this field"
So what you are saying is that holding a "doctoral degree" in philosophy automatically transforms
the individual involved into being a "Philsopher"
This is pure unadulterated nonsense, and I personally have had the aquaintance of two persons
who did indeed hold doctoral degrees in philosophy and they were both light years away from the
qualification of "Philosopher".
Homer was a"Philosopher", Marc Aurel, was a philosopher, Goethe was a philosopher, etc, but
none of the BS artists in this day and age holding doctoral degrees in philosophy, could ever
with a straight face claim to be a "philosopher".
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
@annamaria "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing
the crucial WHY of the operation."
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been
hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest
no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad
and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write
a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]
is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough.
We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We
have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential
community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind - that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the
Friends of Israel and such - have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?
The basic question – which remains unaddressed in the response – is very simply:
What was the Israeli leadership trying to do by launching a combined airborne and naval
attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in 1967?
You mention the Lavon affair in 1954. This scandal arose out of an attempted Israeli false-flag
operation in Egypt that went spectacularly wrong.
The Suez Crisis in 1956 was another major disaster for Israel, the UK and France.
This experience will have informed Israeli government thinking in 1967.
Moreover, as noted in the original post, radar technology at the time, as well simple visual
identification of the attacking jet fighters and vessels precluded even a remote possibility
of dressing up the attack as having been perpetrated by Egypt.
Further, the U.S. had plenty of intelligence assets in both Egypt and Israel to find out what
actually happened to the USS Liberty within hours. An operation of this magnitude involves at
a minimum hundreds of people across different countries and cannot be kept completely secret.
The Lavon affair was intended to involve small anonymous attacks against random civilian targets,
but failed to achieve this relatively modest objective.
Are we now to believe that the Israelis thought they could pull off a massive combined air-sea
attack against a United States vessel on the high seas (where radar and visual observation is
unobstructed) and blame it on Egypt? The very idea is insane.
So why did Israel resort to this desperate gamble?
Barring a collective bout of insanity throughout Israel's civilian and military leadership,
the most likely explanation is that the USS Liberty itself was seen as a major and indeed mortal
threat to Israel, to such an extent that the Israeli leadership decided to risk a major rift with
the U.S. to eliminate the threat.
How would the USS Liberty itself be a threat? Most likely by compiling high-grade military
intelligence and passing it to Egypt and the other Arab nations. This could have occurred either
pursuant to official directives from the top of the U.S. hierarchy, or perhaps because the local
command went rogue.
@Corvinus "and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics
and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the
world forward as and when it did."
You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons,
the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the
product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the
Enlightenment.
"English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
"One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""
The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher",
considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs
students in this field.
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow
a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."
Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher."
Notice how ridiculous it sounds?
French does not have the same inbuilt resistance to unreality. "Moi, je suis philosophe" does
not sound inherently ridiculous to a French speaker.
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been
hushed for many years.
yep
also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be
blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.
As was the Lavon affair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you
don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with
hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was
the false flag attack on 9/11 - that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder
people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.
as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be
blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.
However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a
combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained
in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the
attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.
In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second
about who launched the attack.
Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE
action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.
@annamaria "Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
http://theduran.com/heres-why-saudi-arabia-and-israel-are-allies-in-all-but-name/
"Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations.
Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's
Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have
sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned
Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive
mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious
and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes
and infrastructural projects. ..
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have
full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria,
women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's
ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still
occupies Syria's Golan Heights). ...
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values. Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern
Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and
Tel Aviv for decades ."
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world.
Modern, secular Syria TREBLED its population since 1980 even though water and land were already
exhausted then.
as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed
on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.
However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a
combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained
in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the
attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.
In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second
about who launched the attack.
Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE
action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.
" it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC."
This is not true. Try do read the accounts objectively.
Who is really a philosopher? What is really a philosopher? What is philosophy after all?
At the end of 'Antiquity' (6th Century) an Armenian Christian 'Neo-Platonic' philosopher, David
Anhagt (the Invincible), wrote an 'Introduction to philosophy' in which he epitomized all the
current definitions of Philosophy, which by logical necessity are only six (according to the object
and purpose):
1) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things that exist as they [really] are'.
2) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things divine and human'.
3) 'Philosophy is preparation for death'.
4) 'Philosophy is becoming like the God to the best of human abilities.
5) 'Philosophy is the art of arts and science of sciences'.
6) 'Philosophy is love of wisdom' (filia sophias).
For David (and all 'philosophers') philosophia is a 'care of the soul'. It starts with 'Gnoti
seauton- Know thyself) and ends with 'becoming like God' (theosis) and here it coincides with
the purpose of Christianity ('If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods', 'For the
Son of God became man so that we might become God', 'The Word was made flesh in order that we
might be made gods. Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are
both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life' – the definitions of
the Fathers). Christianity is the 'true philosophy'. Jesus answered the Pharisees: "Is it not
written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)*
*"I have said, Ye are gods; and all [of you] children of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6 – Septuagint).
'Know thyself' because 'The Kingdom of God is within you'.
@annamaria "...it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC."
This is not true. Try do read the accounts objectively. (1) I said that "reading between the lines,"
one might conclude that Israel IMMEDIATELY set about containing the fall-out in Washington. Of
course, such efforts (if they indeed took place) would be hugely embarrassing to Israel and would
be kept top secret even years later.
(2) You have still not given us any real theory of WHY Israel would launch a combined air/sea
attack on the USS Liberty.
The idea that Israel was at this precise moment in the middle of the Six Day War trying
to pin the blame on Egypt does not hold water as explained in several posts above.
CONCLUSION: The best working theory at present is that the USS Liberty was providing high-grade
intelligence to the Arab countries fighting Israel in the Six Day War.
If you have a better explanation consistent with the known facts, including the use of radar
by the USS Liberty and airborne units in the area please share it here.
QUESTION: What is known about LBJ's stated and actual positions vis-a-vis Israel, Egypt, other
Arab countries? Post-retirement contacts by LBJ and his family?
Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced
by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many
other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:
Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions
in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American
experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint
- vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening
as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of
Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason
why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations
from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow
a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."
I don't understand why you say that or why Corvinus thinks it would be silly if anyone did
say in English "I am a philosopher."
Most significant universities in the English-speaking world have a philosophy department whose
faculty members would, in most cases, be prepared to assert that "I am a philosopher."
This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to
make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.
No doubt there are plenty of bad English-speaking philosophers as there are bad English-speaking
academics in every other field, but it is simply false to suggest that philosophical works in
the English language are characterized by ponderous bad writing. In fact, the great English-speaking
philosophers lead the world in the clarity of their analysis:
David Hume
, for example, or
George
Berkeley .
Who is really a philosopher? What is really a philosopher? What is philosophy after all?
At the end of 'Antiquity' (6th Century) an Armenian Christian 'Neo-Platonic' philosopher, David
Anhagt (the Invincible), wrote an 'Introduction to philosophy' in which he epitomized all the
current definitions of Philosophy, which by logical necessity are only six (according to the object
and purpose):
1) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things that exist as they [really] are'.
2) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things divine and human'.
3) 'Philosophy is preparation for death'.
4) 'Philosophy is becoming like the God to the best of human abilities.
5) 'Philosophy is the art of arts and science of sciences'.
6) 'Philosophy is love of wisdom' (filia sophias).
For David (and all 'philosophers') philosophia is a 'care of the soul'. It starts with 'Gnoti
seauton- Know thyself) and ends with 'becoming like God' (theosis) and here it coincides with
the purpose of Christianity ('If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods', 'For the
Son of God became man so that we might become God', 'The Word was made flesh in order that we
might be made gods. ... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are
both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life' - the definitions of
the Fathers). Christianity is the 'true philosophy'. Jesus answered the Pharisees: "Is it not
written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)*
*"I have said, Ye are gods; and all [of you] children of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6 - Septuagint).
'Know thyself' because 'The Kingdom of God is within you'. David Anhagt may have been at the
forefront of philosophy at the end of antiquity, but things have moved on a bit since then. Today,
surely, the key questions in philosophy are of the following kind:
(1) How do we know what we know, if we know anything at all?
(2) What is the nature of external reality, if there is an external reality, and what can we
know of it and how?
(3) If there is an external reality, how come? How did it come to exist?
(4) What is morality?
(5) What is free will, and does it make us morally responsible for our actions?
Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced
by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many
other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:
Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions
in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American
experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint
- vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening
as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of
Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason
why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations
from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism
That is probably the exact opposite of the fact. The English sense of tolerance, such as it
is (think the burning of witches and heretics, the gaoling of or chemical castration of queers),
restraint, such as it is (think football hooliganism and the crass obscenity of some BBC entertainment
programming), etc. are probably the result of Britain's unique set of traditions, the common law,
the breakdown of serfdom as the result of the crash in population caused by the Black Death, property
law, the rights of women dating from pre-Norman times, the King's Courts that provided litigants
access to a court presided over by a professional judge, English trust law, that gave rise to
so many special purpose clubs and organizations from scientific societies to sporting associations
and explains why nearly all the world's most popular sports were invented by the English, and
Henry VIII's marital problems that largely freed Britain from the influence of the Catholic church.
As for:
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions
balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies.
LOL
Privacy? The Brits have more surveillance cameras per capita than any country on earth. They
even have
listening lamp posts.
Secularism? The present archbishop of Canterbury may be of Jewish extraction and experienced
as a oil company money man, but until recent times the British were, for the most part, devout,
mainly protestant, Christians.
Fads? Well maybe the Brits didn't trust them but they had plenty from rock and roll, flick
knives, and ducks arse hair cuts, to mini-skirts, beatlemania, balsa wood airplanes, bellbottom
pants, and on and on.
As for philosophies, the British empiricists are clearly among the most important of the modern
age as the British who know anything about philosophy are happy to acknowledge.
What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?
A country at three times carrying capacity talking about "sovereignty" is like a 600 lb person
talking about running a marathon. as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the
native population and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and
Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic,
the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population
there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by
the "most moral" apartheid state.
And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering
the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd
and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head
of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host
in a desired direction.
@CanSpeccy David Anhagt may have been at the forefront of philosophy at the end of antiquity,
but things have moved on a bit since then. Today, surely, the key questions in philosophy are
of the following kind:
(1) How do we know what we know, if we know anything at all?
(2) What is the nature of external reality, if there is an external reality, and what can we
know of it and how?
(3) If there is an external reality, how come? How did it come to exist?
(4) What is morality?
(5) What is free will, and does it make us morally responsible for our actions?
And much more. All these 'moves' have been already made long before the end of Antiquity. There
were the essential questions of 'philosophy' to which Plato, Aristotle and a score of 'Oriental'
philosophers have offered the answers.
Didn't a noted philosopher of the 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead, famously said that: 'The
safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of
a series of footnotes to Plato'?
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."
Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher."
Notice how ridiculous it sounds?
French does not have the same inbuilt resistance to unreality. "Moi, je suis philosophe" does
not sound inherently ridiculous to a French speaker. "Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher.""
The Saker publishes some interesting news re the MH17 tragedy:
"SBU [Security Service of Ukraine] orders to destroy all evidence of the conducted special operation
MH17″
http://thesaker.is/sbu-orders-to-destroy-all-evidence-of-the-conducted-special-operation-mh17/
by Scott Humor: " If you want to know my opinion that hasn't changed since 2014. The Boeing flight
MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian air force fighter jets, but not necessarily piloted by Ukrainian
pilots. It was a CIA and NATO operation to frame Russia. Most likely the Dutch government was
a part of this operation. Now, they are trying to hang all the dogs on Waltzman -Poroshenko, because
neither the Dutch monarchs, nor the CIA would fancy to be implicated in this crime."
as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed
on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.
However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a
combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained
in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the
attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.
In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second
about who launched the attack.
Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE
action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.
Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced
back to them within hours at the latest.
then why did they machine gun the lifeboats, eh?
that in itself is a war crime you know, and the ONLY reason they would have done it is to sink
the ship with ALL hands. Thereby leaving no survivors to expose the treachery.
and they had the Johnson regime and traitor McNamara on board with their cowardly, murderous
treason.
@annamaria as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population
and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and
Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic,
the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population
there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by
the "most moral" apartheid state.
And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering
the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd
and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head
of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host
in a desired direction. You still haven't answered the question:
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces
were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.
Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan
(i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
@Eagle Eye You still haven't answered the question:
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces
were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.
Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan
(i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
Thank you. if you (and Annamaria) don't mind, I'll address this..
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
there was a war going on between a US ally and a nation of strategic importance to the US-
Israel and Egypt. The USS Liberty was a NSA intelligence ship. It was there to monitor what was
going on. Duh.
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty"
of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
unless you an admiral in the US Navy at the time, no one knows for sure. But a lot of people
have speculated that the USS Liberty was sent by the Johnson regime to get sunk by Israel and
be used as a false flag to take America into war against Egypt.
We already know for a fact that jets were scrambled to assist the USS Liberty and were called
back and ordered not to assist by Johnson through Secretary of State McNamara. And not once, but
twice.
So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that purpose,
or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about it, we'll likely
never know.
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces
were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.
Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan
(i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
"As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate
obstacles to Israel's expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's
government and chaos in Iraq, Washington's war on Syria, and Washington's demonization of Iran
in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war."
@Seraphim There are more, but most of them are sloppy footnotes.
but most of them are sloppy footnotes
True. But that's true of most of what passes for thought or scholarship in every field of intellectual
endeavor. Still mankind has come a long way since the time of Plato in understanding many things
- so far that, in our morally unregenerate state, we appear on the brink of creating Hell on Earth,
either as the result of a final global conflagration or the creation of a global slave state.
How does Russia ( read Putin ) embracing Christianity and encouraging it again in Russia factor
in the sudden sour attitude of our progressives in the US? The LOVED the USSR.. as it was atheistic,
no? But as a non-threat-Russia, and a Christian Russia, eh, not so much; especially since Russia
has decided they are not so fond of the Muslim.
True. But that's true of most of what passes for thought or scholarship in every field of intellectual
endeavor. Still mankind has come a long way since the time of Plato in understanding many things
- so far that, in our morally unregenerate state, we appear on the brink of creating Hell on Earth,
either as the result of a final global conflagration or the creation of a global slave state.
You can see what sloppiness leads to.
@in the middle How exactly did Reagan biggest mistake was amnesty? Explain and give some examples,
please. Giving amnesty to the illegal immigrants who were in America in 1986 encouraged more illegal
immigrants to come, in hopes of a future amnesty.
In 1986 there were only 1 million illegal immigrants. Now there are at least 11 million.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism
That is probably the exact opposite of the fact. The English sense of tolerance, such as it is
(think the burning of witches and heretics, the gaoling of or chemical castration of queers),
restraint, such as it is (think football hooliganism and the crass obscenity of some BBC entertainment
programming), etc. are probably the result of Britain's unique set of traditions, the common law,
the breakdown of serfdom as the result of the crash in population caused by the Black Death, property
law, the rights of women dating from pre-Norman times, the King's Courts that provided litigants
access to a court presided over by a professional judge, English trust law, that gave rise to
so many special purpose clubs and organizations from scientific societies to sporting associations
and explains why nearly all the world's most popular sports were invented by the English, and
Henry VIII's marital problems that largely freed Britain from the influence of the Catholic church.
As for:
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies.
LOL. Privacy? The Brits have more surveillance cameras per capita than any country on earth. They
even have
listening lamp posts.
Secularism? The present archbishop of Canterbury may be of Jewish extraction and experienced
as a oil company money man, but until recent times the British were, for the most part, devout,
mainly protestant, Christians. Fads? Well maybe the Brits didn't trust them but they had plenty from rock and roll, flick
knives, and ducks arse hair cuts, to mini-skirts, beatlemania, balsa wood airplanes, bellbottom
pants, and on and on.
As for philosophies, the British empiricists are clearly among the most important of the modern
age as the British who know anything about philosophy are happy to acknowledge.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism
It may have escaped you that my earlier post referred to the time of the American Revolution,
and in particular to sophisticated British traditions and conventions as they were perceived by
the educated class in the colonies.
The sad decline of Britain in the modern era, and its more colorful history in earlier ages,
are neither here nor there for these purposes.
State department official were backstabbing Trump with impunity... Neocon cohorts recruited by Hillary
such as staffers of Victoria Nuland still feel in charge... Essentially State Department was and
is a neocon swamp that needs to be drained.
The level of McCarthyism hysteria in comments is really frightening...
Notable quotes:
"... These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation
for Russia's intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department
officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block
the move, the sources said. ..."
"... Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures
in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling "deeply uncomfortable," said
one source, who asked not to be identified. ..."
"... These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political
appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional
allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions - effectively locking
them in place - before Trump could lift them ..."
"... The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham
introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without first
submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. "Russia has done nothing to be rewarded with
sanctions relief," Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions without
"verifiable progress" by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, "we would lose all credibility
in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world," added Cardin in his own statement. (A spokesman
for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: "I can also confirm that the senator did hear from
senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already been considering
it as well.") ..."
"... But the political battles over the issue are far from over. Cardin, McCain and Graham are separately
pushing another sanctions bill - imposing tough new measures in response to Russia's election interference.
The measures have so far been blocked for consideration within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
by its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who says he wants to first hear the administration's position
on the issue. ..."
"... In the meantime, Malinowksi said he is concerned that there may be other, less public ways
the administration can undermine the Russian sanctions. He noted that much of their force results from
parallel sanctions imposed by the European Union, whose members must unanimously renew them each year.
..."
"... "I had this nightmare vision of [White House senior adviser ] Steve Bannon or [National Security
Council staffer] Sebastian Gorka calling in the Hungarian ambassador and telling them President Trump
would not be displeased" if his country opposed the renewal of sanctions, he said. ..."
How the Trump administration's secret efforts to ease Russia sanctions fell short
In the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State
Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials
to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.
Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they
took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic
sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.
These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation
for Russia's intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department
officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block
the move, the sources said.
"There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions," said
Dan Fried, a veteran State Department official who served as chief U.S. coordinator for sanctions
policy until he retired in late February. He said in the first few weeks of the administration, he
received several "panicky" calls from U.S. government officials who told him they had been directed
to develop a sanctions-lifting package and imploring him, "Please, my God, can't you stop this?"
Fried said he grew so concerned that he contacted Capitol Hill allies - including Sen. Ben Cardin,
D-Md., the ranking minority member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - to urge them to move
quickly to pass legislation that would "codify" the sanctions in place, making it difficult for President
Trump to remove them.
Tom Malinowski, who had just stepped down as President Obama's assistant secretary of state for
human rights, told Yahoo News he too joined the effort to lobby Congress after learning from former
colleagues that the administration was developing a plan to lift sanctions - and possibly arrange
a summit between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin - as part of an effort to achievea "grand
bargain" with Moscow. "It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Malinowski, who only days before
he left office
announced his own round of sanctions against senior Russian officials for human rights abuses
under a law known as the Magnitsky Act.
The previously unreported efforts by Fried and others to check the Trump administration's policy
moves cast new light on the unseen tensions over Russia policy during the early days of the new administration.
It also potentially takes on new significance for congressional and Justice Department investigators
in light of reports that before the administration took office Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner,
and his chief foreign policy adviser, Michael Flynn, discussed setting up a private channel of communications
with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak - talks that appear to have laid the groundwork for the proposals
that began circulating right after the inauguration.
A senior White House official confirmed that the administration began exploring changes in Russia
sanctions as part of a broader policy review that is still ongoing. "We've been reviewing all the
sanctions - and this is not exclusive to Russia," the official said. "All the sanctions regimes have
mechanisms built in to alleviate them. It's been our hope that the Russians would take advantage
of that" by living up to Moscow's agreement to end the Ukraine conflict, but they did not do so.
To be sure, President Trump's interest in improving relations with Moscow was hardly a secret
during last year's presidential campaign." If we can make a great deal for our country and get along
with Russia, that would be a tremendous thing," Trump said in a April 28, 2016, Fox News
interview ."I would love to try it."
But there was nothing said in public about specific steps the new administration took toward reaching
the kind of deal the president had talked about during the campaign - without requiring the Russians
to acknowledge responsibility for the annexation of Crimea or Moscow's "influence campaign" during
the 2016 election.
Just days after President Trump took office, officials who had moved into the secretary of state's
seventh-floor office sent a "tasking" order to the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs to develop
a menu of options to improve relations with Russia as part of a deal in exchange for Russian cooperation
in the war against the Islamic State in Syria, according to two former officials. Those options were
to include sanctions relief as well as other steps that were a high priority for Moscow, including
the return of two diplomatic compounds - one on Long Island and the other on Maryland's Eastern Shore
- that were shut by President Obama on Dec. 29on the grounds that they were being used for espionage
purposes. (The return of the compounds is again being actively considered by the administration,
according to
a Washington Post reportThursday. ) "Obviously, the Russians have been agitating about this,"
the senior White House official said when asked about the compounds, or "dachas," as the Russians
call them. But it would be inaccurate to report there has been an agreement to return them without
some reciprocal move on Moscow's part.
Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures
in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling "deeply uncomfortable," said
one source, who asked not to be identified.
These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political
appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional
allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions - effectively
locking them in place - before Trump could lift them
The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham
introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without
first submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. "Russia has done nothing to be rewarded
with sanctions relief," Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions
without "verifiable progress" by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, "we would lose all
credibility in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world," added Cardin in his own statement.
(A spokesman for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: "I can also confirm that the senator
did hear from senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already
been considering it as well.")
The proposed bill lost some of its urgency six days later when Flynn resigned as White House national
security adviser following disclosures he had discussed political sanctions relief with Kislyak during
the transition and misrepresented those talks to Vice President Mike Pence. After that, "it didn't
take too long for it to become clear that if they lifted sanctions, there would be a political firestorm,"
Malinowski said.
But the political battles over the issue are far from over. Cardin, McCain and Graham are
separately pushing another sanctions bill - imposing tough new measures in response to Russia's election
interference. The measures have so far been blocked for consideration within the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee by its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who says he wants to first hear the administration's
position on the issue.
In the meantime, Malinowksi said he is concerned that there may be other, less public ways
the administration can undermine the Russian sanctions. He noted that much of their force results
from parallel sanctions imposed by the European Union, whose members must unanimously renew them
each year.
"I had this nightmare vision of [White House senior adviser ] Steve Bannon or [National Security
Council staffer] Sebastian Gorka calling in the Hungarian ambassador and telling them President Trump
would not be displeased" if his country opposed the renewal of sanctions, he said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday during a panel at the St. Petersburg
Economic Forum that the US investigations into whether the Kremlin meddled in the US
election are nothing more than "hysteria," and that the anti-Russia sentiment in the US
was about as virulent as anti-semitism. "It's like saying everything is the Jews'
fault," said Putin, who said the blame for Hillary Clinton's November loss lies squarely
at the feet of the Democratic presidential candidate and members of her party,
according to a report.
"This reminds me of anti-Semitism," Putin said. "The Jews are to blame for
everything. An idiot cannot do anything himself, so the Jews are to blame. But we
know what such attitudes lead to. They end with nothing good."
Putin, who was being interviewed by NBC's Megyn Kelly, brushed off questions about
meetings that members of the Trump campaign - including then-Sen. Jeff Sessions - had
with Russian officials such as ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
"
So our ambassador met someone. That's his job. That's why we pay him,"
Putin said. "So what?
What's he supposed to do, hit up the bars
?"
Putin was amused when Kelly touched on the subject of Russian foreign news coverage
spreading "disinformation." Putin accused her "colleagues" of dragging Russia into their
coverage unfavourably.
"Let's end this," Putin told her. "You will feel better and we will feel better."
Donald Trump won because he had run a more effective presidential campaign than Hillary
Clinton, Putin said, adding the US intelligence agencies may have faked evidence of
Russian hacking, according to Reuters. Allegations of Russian involvement were nothing
more than "harmful gossip," Putin insisted, there were no "Russian fingerprints" on the
alleged hacks,
Reuters reported.
Earlier this week,
Putin denied the Russian state had directed any hacking
operations designed to influence the U.S. election
– though he did say Russian
"patriots" could have been behind the plot on their own, Fox reported.
Following President Donald Trump's decision Thursday to take the US out of the Paris
Climate Accord talks, Putin said that there's still time to reach a deal on the 2015
pact even without the US's involvement, before adding, in English, "don't worry, be
happy,"
according to Reuters.
Despite the critism that has been heapened upon Trump by
other world leaders
since he announced his decision to leave the accord last night,
Putin said that he "wouldn't blame Trump" for leaving the accord
,
though he hoped the White House would set its own climate rules.
"
By the way, we should be grateful to President Trump. In Moscow it's
raining and cold and even, they say, some snow. Now we could blame this all on
American imperialism, that it's all their fault. But we won't.
"
And though he said he hopes that US sanctions against Russia would soon be lifted, he
noted that they did have some positive effects.
"We had to use our brains,"
Putin said. "Not rely on oil and gas dollars."
Allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin have dogged the new
administration since before the inauguration. In recent weeks, US media have taken aim
at Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner,
whom NBC and WaPo reported was a "person of interest" in the FBI' campaign.
As a reminder, Kelly is set to interview Putin in St. Petersburg Friday for a Sunday
night special that will
air on NBC.
For those disaffected Hillary snowflakes looking for some
level of concrete, tangible evidence from today's Senate
testimony from the "intelligence community" that "Russian
Hackers" purposefully colluded with President-elect Trump to
steal the 2016 election from Clinton, we have some bad news:
your desire for evidence required to start World War III
over your candidate's loss has still not been fulfilled.
Better luck next time.
As we suspected, today's testimony
offered up by James Clapper and others of the "intelligence
community" to the Senate's Armed Forces Committee has
largely been nothing more than another smear campaign rife
with political rhetoric but light on facts and tangible
evidence.
Asked whether Julian Assange was credible,
Clapper, who ironically has lost all
credibility throughout this process with his
rapidly evolving story line, was quick to
confirm in the negative. Per
The Hill
:
When asked if Assange was credible,
Clapper responded with a very noticeably
annoyed look, "Not in my view."
Navy Adm. Michael Rogers, commander
of U.S. Cyber Command and director of
National Security Agency responded, "I
second those comments."
Meanwhile, other comments aimed at Julian
Assange drew some expected criticism from
Wikileaks
... ... ...
Clapper, apparently interviewing for a
commentator spot at MSNBC, warned that
hacking wasn't the extent of the efforts by
Russia to meddle in the 2016 election which
also included coordinated efforts from RT,
and other "fake news" outlets, to exploit
any "fissure they could find in our
tapestry."
"
RT was very active in promoting
a particular point of view, disparaging
our system, our alleged hypocrisy about
human rights, etc
. Whatever crack,
fissure they could find in our tapestry,
they would exploit it,"
... ... ...
..and warned against
retaliatory efforts saying
that
"we and other
nations conduct similar acts
of espionage."
"As I say,
people in glass houses
need to think about
throwing rocks. This was
an act of espionage. And
we and other nations
conduct similar acts of
espionage."
Per a note
earlier this
morning from
The Hill
,
there are
five key
things to
watch for as
the hearing
progresses:
1.
How many
Republicans
will
criticize
Trump's
stance?
- Both John
McCain, who
chairs the
committee,
and Lindsey
Graham of
South
Carolina,
another
member of
the panel,
have been
vocal in
their
criticism of
Trump's
unwillingness
to blindly
accept the
rapidly
evolving
"facts"
presented by
the
"intelligence
community."
2. How
strong is
the evidence
that Russia
hacked the
DNC? -
After Julian
Assange
again
appeared on
Fox News
earlier this
week to
confirm that
his source
was not
Russia, or
any "state
actor" for
that matter,
the
"intelligence
community"
once again
changed its
narrative
this morning
to imply
that Russia
hacked the
DNC and John
Podesta then
provided
that
information
to Wikileaks
via a third
party.
Well, how
convenient
is that? We
look forward
to receiving
some
concrete,
tangible
evidence
from Mr.
Clapper on
this new
assertion.
3. What
evidence
does the
intelligence
community
have that
Putin wanted
to assist
Trump? -
The
CIA, without
supplying
any
evidence,
reportedly
believes
that Russia
was
explicitly
trying to
help Trump -
raising
politically
explosive
questions
about the
degree to
which it
succeeded.
Meanwhile,
the White
House has
stopped
short if
that
conclusion
telling CNN
that
"President
Obama and
this
administration
is 100
percent
certain in
the role
that Russia
played in
trying to
sow discord
and
confusion
and getting
involved,
through the
cyber
domain, in
our
electoral
process."
Will
any actual
evidence of
collusion
between
Trump and
Russian
officials be
presented?
4. How much
will the
public get
to see - and
when? -
Will this
whole
charade just
be
more
political
rhetoric
,
which is the
only thing
the
"intelligence
community"
has provided
to date,
or will
actual
tangible
evidence
finally be
presented
to support
the "Russian
hacking"
narrative.
5. How much
will either
committee be
able to do?
-
With a
new
administration
taking over
in 15 days
will any of
this
actually
matter or is
it just a
last-ditch
effort to
delegitimize
the incoming
administration?
Of
course,
Trump has
maintained a
healthy dose
of
skepticism
of the
intelligence
community's
"facts." In
a series of
tweets
earlier this
week, Trump
accused
intelligence
officials of
delaying his
briefing
until Friday
in order to
build a case
against
Russia. He
also noted
comments
from
Wikileaks
founder
Julian
Assange who
has
repeatedly
said that
his leaked
material was
not provided
by the
Russian
government.
consider all of the supposed sources on the panel; the fact its even news, fake at that, is evidence enough the MSM is still over-populated with morons and sycophants.
All we need is a Closet Homosexual like Graham leading us into WW3, some body please just out this guy with a photo so we don't get into a nuclear exchange.
The takeaway is that they would rather the 'election were hacked' than divulge how extensive and pervasive their big brother spying on every bit of communication traffic is. (Not that I think the election was hacked in the first place.)
"
They didn't change any vote tallies,"
Clapper said, but "We have no way of gauging the impact that - certainly the Intelligence Community can't - the choices that the electorate made. There's no way for us to gauge."
Hmmmm. Do they have a way of "gauging the impact" that our zio-controlled lying media may have had on the choices that the electorate made? Since this is a question of equal or greater importance, I just thought I'd ask.
McCain, Graham, clapper and the rest totally involved in the genocide of Libya and Syria along with Clintons, Soros, Sid Blumenthal, Petreaus, KKR-Halliburton, Mike Morell-zio, White Helmets fraud, Nato, Epstein and the rest. They all need to be put on trial and arrested. Evil evil scum.
I saw a video about JGs aka military attorneys which is what Graham was in the Navy or Naval Reserve. Supposedly they run a terror op and engage in a lot of the really dirty stuff that MIC, The Pentagram and Deep State enagge in.
the fake news about "Russian Hacking" originates from the NATO generation. They all are aware that is the first 20th century legacy institution on the chopping block.
All of the MIC sweating over their trillion $ war budget. Got to keep things hot to justify the waste. To many tapped out taxpayers asking too many questions.
The production of weapons of mass destruction has always been associated with economic "waste." The term is pejorative, since it implies a failure of function. But no human activity can properly be considered wasteful if it achieves its contextual objective....
In the case of military "waste," there is indeed a larger social utility.... In advanced modern democratic societies, the war system ... has served as the last great safeguard against the elimination of necessary social classes. As economic productivity increases to a level further and further above that of minimum subsistence, it becomes more and more difficult for a society to maintain distribution patterns insuring the existence of "hewers of wood and drawers of water."...
The arbitrary nature of war expenditures and of other military activities make them ideally suited to control these essential class relationships.... The continuance of the war system must be assured, if for no other reason, among others, than to preserve whatever quality and degree of poverty a society requires as an incentive, as well as to maintain the stability of its internal organization of power.
This bullshit Russian interference narrative and politicized investigation is more sour grapes meant to discredit Donald Trump's election victory!
*
The anti-Trump protests and street riots didn't work.
*The Jill Stein recount failed miserably and actually gave Trump more votes!
*Death threats to intimidate the Electoral College failed.
*Now it's the fake news that "Russia did it".
Where is the investigation on all of this?
It's already out from a close friend of Julian Assange that it was a disgruntled Bernie Sanders DNC insider that "leaked" the emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks and NOT Russian hacking. Maybe Seth Rich? The Obama Administration is ignoring this and continuing with its idiotic "Russia did it" narrative which is "fake news". Donald is right, not one shred of real and credible evidence.
Assange said that a 14 year old could have hacked John Podesta's emails!
This is just a vague circumstancial case to justify the fake Obama narrative to discredit Donald Trump's election victory.
Fuck Obama, fuck crooked Hillary......15 more days libtards!
aliki •Jan 5, 2017 1:09 PM
take-away was simple
mccain & lindsey are ass-hurt nobody picked them to play president for the next 4 years
as a result, they want war with russia, iran, china, north korea
id love nothing more than for trump to fire them by executive order
its ironic to hear a pair of clowns say how assange has put our troops in harms-way
coming from a pair of guys who never met a country they wanted to bomb & follow-up with an invasion
then they talk about countries wanting to ruin our democratic process
coming from the guys who had the cia train rebels to overthrow assad, overthrew saddam, tried to overthrow everyone in iran, kim-jon, stacking troops/tanks on the russian border
fucking histerical
the democrats have no idea why they lost
the republicans have no idea why they won
the usa has jumped every shark in the ocean. there are about three people who believe the russian meme and these zionazis can't stop over selling a dead meme. what are they up to? there is no election for another 2 years and trump is not going to war with russia. all they are doing to making sure their legacy depicts them as the craven fools they are.
This is show time. Sources and Methods be damned. Kennedy showed the reconnaissance photos of Russian Missiles in Cuba.
This demonstration is the super bowl. There is no tomorrow for them if they can't convince us they are not lying,
so there is no point he holding back. Snowden might be an interesting source for this. His knowledge is a bit stale
now, but he knows that the NSA can do, and if there is no forthcoming NSA public evidence, nothing redacted, then Clapper, et. al. lied before congress and should be prosecuted.
Lets have a confrontation the Russian experts in public like Kennedy did over the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is
the Super bowl. There is no game tomorrow for these guys if they can't produce convincing evidence now. The moment
the intelligence services are invented for. is NOW.
I heard nothing today but bloviating. They did not even go into that Cozy bear Fancy bear crap. That story falls apart in your hands. Now there tack is that the Russian wanted us to know it was them so they were sloppy.
Clapper, Graham, and McCain can be guilty of presenting false testimony to congress, or can be put under oath and ambushed into making statements they knew were false.
The biggest problem today was reality. Fuck it must be hard trying to convince an entire globe that we should be going to war without any facts or truth to anything. I can't believe these clowns actually sat through this like they were somehow relevant. How doesn't someone stand up in the middle of this and just say "Come on guys, really, come on. This is absolutely ridiculous. You can't continue to make shit up. Come on. Seriously."
"Older men start wars, but younger men fight them." ~ Albert Einstein
"Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die." ~ Herbert Hoover
"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in." ~ George S. McGovern
The other day, I saw one of those bumper stickers that says, "War is Not the Answer". It's a silly bumper sticker because it provides an "answer" but fails to provide the corresponding question. Yes, I know it's a Liberal thing but what they should be saying is that, Government is Not the Answer because, for government, war IS the answer. For government and for those in government, war means power, and wealth, and influence. For the rest of us, war means only death and destruction and poverty.
OMG, he's got nothing. Clapperclaimed today thathe's "ready" to brief Trump with his evidence. We're all still waiting. I'm so glad someone is taking these intel weenies to task. They've been hiding behind their secrecy for decades saying whatever they want with zero repercussions as they always deter to need-to-know tactics to silence all questions. Well, a new day has arrived, IC. You will learnthe word ACCOUNTABILITY. You might have to look it up.
How this guy isn't in prison is beyond me.He's a known liar in front of congress. What, did they really have the audacity of swearing him in again? He, Graham, McCain ad Ryan are all squealing like frightened rabbit being pulled out of their holes.This stance of "listen to me because I'm important" rhetoric has lost its luster. People are finally wising up to their crap. Put up or shut up, Clapper.
Well, that confirms it. The "Intelligence Community" leadership (and I use the term "intelligence" and "leadership" rather loosely) of Clapper, Brennan and Morel set off the alarm based on no factual evidence for political purposes, trying to trap Trump with the American flag and the red menace just like they did to GW Bush on the Iraq WMD and to the nigga with ISIS the JV team. They did this solely to help Hillary with her donors and hurt Trump.
Time to clean out the 17 intelligence agencies and ODNI. You can't trust the analysts and there's too few in the front lines doing real HUMINT.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting this déjŕ-vu feeling all over again (to paraphrase Yogi). This ridiculous idea that the Russians somehow won the election for Trump, by hacking and other means, sounds eerily familiar to the WMDs that Iraq supposedly had, that Colon (sic)Powell, et-al, used as an excuse to lead us towar(s) thatare now going on two decades. Fine and dandy against a third world country, fighting with decades old weaponry, never mind that it's taken the life of many brave, young, gullible Americans, as well as 10's of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, but it's a whole different ball game against the Russians. Any type of conventional war against Russia is suicide (if in doubt, ask Napoleon, or Hitler) and if there is a conventional war and either side starts losing, the war goes nuclear and we are all fucked. The only saving grace is that most have us have seen this movie before and hopefully we're not stupid enough to fall for this plot the second time around, because if we do, there ain't going to be a third.
"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using
anti-Russian slogans,"
"Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case
they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
what is really interesting that there were only a couple of sane individuals (Jack
Paper , Wilfred_Blake,
PT come to mind ) and in the
whole discussion thread. The level of hysteria is really incredible and remind me of Stalinist Russia.
People are so brainwashed into new McCartyism, that Senator McCarthy is he would know, probably is really
proud and little bit envious at the results achieved. This collective Senator McCarthy that MSM now
represent proved to be more dramatically efficient
Notable quotes:
"... Threat. OK. Threat. That's a good word. We're in a moment when we need an American president and a Kremlin leader to act at the highest level of statesmanship. Whether they meet in summit or not is not of great importance, but we need intense negotiations to tamp down this new Cold War, particularly in Syria, but not only. Trump is being crippled by these charges, for which I can find no facts whatsoever. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... You need Trump because he's in the White House. I didn't put him there. I didn't vote for him. Putin's in the Kremlin. I didn't put him in the Kremlin either, but we have what we have, and these guys must have a serious dialog about tamping down these cold wars, which means cooperating on various fronts. The obvious one-and they already are secretly, but it's getting torpedoed-is Syria. ..."
"... "This assault on Trump, for which as yet there are zero facts, has become a grave threat to American national security." ..."
"... So we come now with this so-called Russiagate. You know what that means. It's our shorthand, right? And Trump, even if he was the most wonderfully qualified president, he is utterly crippled in his ability to do diplomacy with the Kremlin. So let me give you the counterfactual example. ..."
"... Imagine that Kennedy had been accused of somehow being, they used to accuse him of being an agent of the Vatican, but let's say he had been accused widely of being an agent of the Kremlin. The only way he could have ended the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been to prove his loyalty by going to nuclear war with Russia. That's the situation we're in today. I mean Trump is not free to take wise advice and use whatever smarts he has to negotiate down this new and dangerous Cold War, so this assault on Trump, for which as yet there are zero facts, has become a grave threat to American national security. That's what I meant. That's what I believe. ..."
"... So we don't have any forensic evidence that there was a hack. There might have been. If there was a hack, we have no evidence it was the Russians, and we have an alternative explanation that it was actually a leak, that somebody inside did a Snowden, just stuck a thumb drive in and walked out with this stuff. We don't know. And when you don't know, you don't go to war. ..."
"... On the face of it, because it so deviated from American mainstream thinking about Putin, which was that he was a demon-that's what was startling about Trump, you're absolutely right. That he alone of all the candidates, even when we had multiple ones in the Democratic and Republican primaries, so far as I recall, he alone made this statement, I think I quote exactly, "Wouldn't it be great if we cooperated with Russia?" My answer is not only great but imperative. He also said, he also said he didn't know that Putin was actually a killer of personal enemies. That is correct. There is no evidence to support those allegations. He also said that Putin is a strong leader. That is also correct. ..."
"... I'm saying that the people with expertise and independence who examined, for example, the Litvinenko poisoning in London, find no evidence that Putin was involved. [Ed. note: A public inquiry in the United Kingdom found that Putin had "probably" approved his murder.] These are not Russians or Americans. These are just people who know about polonium. I'm saying that the newspaper in Moscow-and you're not quite correct that there's no free press in Moscow. There is a small, embattled free press in Moscow. I and my wife are very, very close, very close to the primary one, that's Novaya Gazeta ..."
"... Wait a minute. Let me just get to the point. That notion that he had her killed and put his signature on it is beyond ridiculous. Why? The next day he comes out, there's a press conference, and he's asked about her killing and the charges that the Kremlin was behind it, and he said something that might have been, what's the word? Not politic. Not diplomatic, but it was true. Essentially, I don't remember exactly what he said. Why would we want to kill her? Nobody in Russia read her. She had no influence in Russia. ..."
"... Why did you kill her? ..."
"... Why would I want to kill her? What was my motive? ..."
"... You know, Anna was a great journalist, we mourn her death, but let's be serious. She was not an influential force in Russia. ..."
"... My view is that this Cold War is even more dangerous. As we talk today, and this was not the case in the preceding Cold War, there are three new fronts that are fraught with hot war. You know them as well as I do. The NATO military build-up is going on in the Baltic regions, particularly in the three small Baltic countries, Poland, and if we include missile defense, Romania. That's right on Russia's border, and in Ukraine. You know that story. That's a proxy civil war right on Russia's border, and then of course in Syria, where American and Russian aircraft and Syrian aircraft are flying over the same airspace. ..."
"... And a nation, but a country that has long been deeply divided by history or by God. I mean, we're talking ethnicity, language, religion, political tilting. One part tilts toward Russia, one part tilts toward the West. Many millions of Ukrainians and Russians have intermarried over the years. This is a country that always had the potential to either break apart or launch into civil war. The events of 2014, for which both sides are highly culpable, initiated a civil war. This entourage around Putin, one segment of it was absolutely 1,000 percent convinced that NATO was headed via Kiev to Crimea. Had Crimea fallen in any way to NATO, any way, even in the shadow of NATO, Putin would have had to either go to war or resign. No Russian leader would have been able to sustain that kind of defeat. ..."
"... I don't want to go down in a subway and get blown up. It's going to happen. The Russians are excellent at this. They've got great intelligence. We're pretty good-not as good as the Russians. We need to combine it all. I see that this kind of alliance is good; we move on then to finding the solution in Ukraine and in the Baltic region. That's what Reagan did. Do you remember that Reagan going to Geneva, I think it was November 1985? Then two years later-I think this is right-he and Gorbachev for the first time in history, Isaac, abolished an entire category of nuclear weapons. This is what I want. This is probably what's not possible. ..."
"... I mean for Christ's sake. Have you watched Carter Page on television? ..."
"... Correction, May 30, 2017: This article originally misstated that the Moscow hotel mentioned in the dossier was the St. Regis. It was the Ritz-Carlton. ( Return .) ..."
"... I see little independent evidence that Putin wanted Trump specifically to be elected rather than wanting HRC not to be elected. There was no attempt at interfering with the GOP primary in Trump's favor. Any notion that Trump was groomed by Putin in some kind of long game defies reason. Simply put, no one could have had any confidence that Trump would win, ever. ..."
"... So if both of these assumptions hold, what the Democrats are creating, essentially, is a "stab in the back" myth on which they can focus their anger while muddying issues of accountability. Putin, I think it's clear, did not think that Trump had much chance of winning. To say he got "lucky" also doesn't describe the current reality, because this issue will probably taint US-Russian relations far into the future, and in ways no one could have foreseen. ..."
"... But then it's also possible that this will taint American politics into the distant future. The thing about stab-in-the-back myths is that they're emotional, it's extremely difficult for people to a discuss them. much less turn a contested narrative into one based upon mutual agreement. This will be true whether Trump gets impeached or serves two terms. ..."
"... "Europeans have an opinion of Americans as people who hysterically overreact to even the smallest of problems, real, or imagined" ..."
"... And what did exactly Putin did? Told everyone what they already knew about Hillary Clinton? American politics is all about negative ads and made up stuff about other candidates, how exactly was it news to anyone that Hillary Clinton was plotting to bring down Bernie Sanders? Did you guys never have an election before? ..."
"... Are you saying Putin finances Antifa? Because so far they have been the biggest force behind making Trump and Alt-Right look good. That would not be impossible, some corporations did that with environmental groups and they highlight targets for them that were either competitors or themselves but to paint those corporations as victims of unreasonable radicals (hence drowning any constructive criticism). ..."
"... His brilliant placement of several thousand Russian operatives in MI, WI and PA, who were able to bribe a significant number of voters to tip the electoral scale in Trump's favor, was simply brilliant. ..."
"... While this guy isn't saying Trump is right, in as nice a way possible he is saying the NeoCon/NeoLibs are as much to blame and the anti-Russian hysteria is overblown, out of control and incredibly short-sighted. ..."
"... I don't think the Russian interference amounted to a hill of beans in this election. If you think it did, you are delusional. Do you really think some person in the Midwest changed their vote because of what was in the Podesta emails? You're an idiot if you think that. ..."
"... And let's not forget our own interference. ..."
"... So why should Russia trust a country that reneged on its promises and expanded its way to Russia's border? ..."
Stephen F. Cohen has long been one of the leading scholars of Russia and the Soviet Union. He
wrote a biography of the Bolshevik revolutionary Nikolai Bukharin and is a contributing editor at
the Nation, which his wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, edits and publishes. In recent years, Cohen has
emerged as a more ideologically dexterous figure, ripping those he thinks are pursuing a "new Cold
War" with Russia and calling for President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to form
"an alliance against international terrorism." Cohen has gone so far as to describe the investigations
into the Trump campaign and Russia "the No. 1 threat to the United States today."
... ... ...
I heard you recently on Fox News. You said that the "assault" on President Trump "was the
No. 1 threat to the United States today." What did you mean by that?
Threat. OK. Threat.
That's a good word. We're in a moment when we need an American president and a Kremlin leader to
act at the highest level of statesmanship. Whether they meet in summit or not is not of great importance,
but we need intense negotiations to tamp down this new Cold War, particularly in Syria, but not only.
Trump is being crippled by these charges, for which I can find no facts whatsoever.
Wait, which charges are we talking about?
That he is somehow in the thrall or
complicity or control, under the influence of the Kremlin.
I think it would help if he would admit what his own intelligence agencies are telling him,
that Russia played some role in
No, I don't accept that. I don't accept that at all,
not for one minute.
People in the Trump administration admit this too.
Well they're not the brightest
lights.
And the president is?
No. You didn't ask me that. You asked me, you said, some
of the president's people. You're referring to that intel report of January, correct? The one that
was produced that said Putin directed the attack on the DNC?
I was referring to that and many news accounts that Russia was behind the hacking, yes.
The news accounts are of no value to us. I mean you and I both know ...
No value? None?
No. No value. Not on face value. Just because the New York
Times says that I don't know, Carter Page or [Paul] Manafort or [Michael] Flynn did something
wrong, I don't accept that. I need to see the evidence.
So then how do you know what's going on in, say, Ukraine? You're not reading "news accounts"
of it?
I read on the internet mainly. I can't read Ukrainian very well, but most of the
sources coming out of Ukraine are in Russian anyway.
So that media's OK, but the New York Times isn't?
No. It absolutely is
not OK. No, no, no, no, no, no.
OK, let's just go back to what you were saying about Trump being hamstrung.
You
need Trump because he's in the White House. I didn't put him there. I didn't vote for him. Putin's
in the Kremlin. I didn't put him in the Kremlin either, but we have what we have, and these guys
must have a serious dialog about tamping down these cold wars, which means cooperating on various
fronts. The obvious one-and they already are secretly, but it's getting torpedoed-is Syria.
So we come now with this so-called Russiagate. You know what that means. It's our shorthand,
right? And Trump, even if he was the most wonderfully qualified president, he is utterly crippled
in his ability to do diplomacy with the Kremlin. So let me give you the counterfactual example.
Imagine that Kennedy had been accused of somehow being, they used to accuse him of being an agent
of the Vatican, but let's say he had been accused widely of being an agent of the Kremlin. The only
way he could have ended the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been to prove his loyalty by going to
nuclear war with Russia. That's the situation we're in today. I mean Trump is not free to take wise
advice and use whatever smarts he has to negotiate down this new and dangerous Cold War, so this
assault on Trump, for which as yet there are zero facts, has become a grave threat to American national
security. That's what I meant. That's what I believe.
To use your Kennedy example, there
was no evidence that Kennedy was an agent of either the Vatican or the Kremlin-
No, but Isaac you're not old enough to remember, but during the campaign, because he was the first
Catholic, they all went on about he's an agent of the Vatican.
I know that. I'm old enough
to have read "news accounts" of it. Anyway, there was a hacking of the DNC and-
Wait actually no, Isaac stop. Stop. Now, I mean we don't know that for a fact.
That there
was a hacking of the DNC?
Yeah we do not know that for a fact.
What do we think happened?
Well ...
So you're really going to argue with me that the DNC wasn't hacked?
I'm saying I don't know that to be the case.
OK.
I will refer you to an alternative report and you can decide yourself.
Can we agree on
this much at least: that Trump said there was a hack, refused to say who he thought did it, encouraged
the hackers to keep doing it, at the same time that he was getting intelligence reports that it was
the Russians, and that he continued to talk very positively about Putin after he was told this?
You've given me too many facts to process, but if Trump said he knew it was a hack, he was not fully
informed. We just don't know it for a fact, Isaac.
So we don't have any forensic evidence that
there was a hack. There might have been. If there was a hack, we have no evidence it was the Russians,
and we have an alternative explanation that it was actually a leak, that somebody inside did a Snowden,
just stuck a thumb drive in and walked out with this stuff. We don't know. And when you don't know,
you don't go to war.
Let me try another tactic.
It's not me making this stuff up. It's not my opinion.
It's just out there. I read it, and I think it's credible.
Why do you think Trump, who has essentially, as far as I can tell, no clue about what's going
on anywhere and can't keep his mind on some issue for 10 minutes, has had in his head consistently
time and again that we must make peace with Putin, we must come together with Putin, Putin's a good
guy? What do you make of that?
Well you have given me a kind of primitive version of what
Trump said. First of all, I don't share the view that Trump's an idiot. Trump's a clever, cunning,
smart man, or he wouldn't have become Donald Trump. Whether that's applicable to the presidency is
a different question, but to treat him as a buffoon and an idiot is just silly.
On the face of it, because it so deviated from American mainstream thinking about Putin, which was
that he was a demon-that's what was startling about Trump, you're absolutely right. That he alone
of all the candidates, even when we had multiple ones in the Democratic and Republican primaries,
so far as I recall, he alone made this statement, I think I quote exactly, "Wouldn't it be great
if we cooperated with Russia?" My answer is not only great but imperative. He also said, he also
said he didn't know that Putin was actually a killer of personal enemies. That is correct. There
is no evidence to support those allegations. He also said that Putin is a strong leader. That is
also correct.
You say there's no evidence Putin was a killer. Don't you think if Russia
had a more robust free press and was more of a liberal democracy, evidence might actually emerge?
There's no evidence. I know there are allegations, but I have looked into the three or four most
famous cases. I can't look at them all because there's about 30 now, some of them withdrawn.
So you're saying these Putin enemies who keep turning up dead in Moscow, and then those deaths
are not properly investigated, there's no evidence that Putin was behind them? That's your argument?
Not behind, that's correct. He was not behind. He didn't order the killings, yes.
We know
that because there's been a fair investigation and there's a free press to report on that? That's
what you are saying?
I'm saying that the people with expertise and independence who examined, for example, the Litvinenko
poisoning in London, find no evidence
that Putin was involved. [Ed. note: A public inquiry in the United Kingdom found that Putin had "probably"
approved his murder.] These are not Russians or Americans. These are just people who know about polonium.
I'm saying that the newspaper in Moscow-and you're not quite correct that there's no free press in
Moscow. There is a small, embattled free press in Moscow. I and my wife are very, very close, very
close to the primary one, that's Novaya Gazeta. That's the newspaper that employed Anna
Politkovskaya and several other journalists that were assassinated.
Who killed her?
I mean, I don't know who killed her. They've arrested the gunman, but they never get to the contract-giver.
It almost certainly came out of Chechnya, almost certainly.
And who runs Chechnya?
You're headed now into a complicated turf.
You know who runs Chechnya, and you know who
his patron is.
Let me put it to you like this: On the chart of federal authority, Ramzan Kadyrov runs Chechnya,
and Putin could remove him.
OK, well, there you go.
No, that's the beginning of the discussion. What would happen in Chechnya if Putin removed Kadyrov?
He either leaves Kadyrov in power and tries to rein him in, or the Russian army tries again to occupy
Chechnya, which was a catastrophe two times under Yeltsin. You can't do it. What choice does Putin
have at the moment?
Didn't Putin speak disparagingly after Anna's death and say she had
"minimal influence"?
Wait a minute. Let me just get to the point. That notion that he had her killed and put his signature
on it is beyond ridiculous. Why? The next day he comes out, there's a press conference, and he's
asked about her killing and the charges that the Kremlin was behind it, and he said something that
might have been, what's the word? Not politic. Not diplomatic, but it was true. Essentially, I don't
remember exactly what he said. Why would we want to kill her? Nobody in Russia read her. She
had no influence in Russia. What he said was about 95 percent true. Very few people except the
inner political class knew who Anna Politkovskaya was, just like the great majority of Americans
don't know who Stephen Cohen and Isaac Chotiner are. We are known to the people who care about the
things we do.
What he was saying was, when people said, Why did you kill her? He said,
Why would I want to kill her? What was my motive? He shouldn't have said it, I guess. He
should have said, You know, Anna was a great journalist, we mourn her death, but let's be serious.
She was not an influential force in Russia. That would have been better but he just, he's a
blunt sort of guy. He said what he said.
Let's turn to Putin and America. Why do you think we have entered a new Cold War?
My view is that this Cold War is even more dangerous. As we talk today, and this was not the case
in the preceding Cold War, there are three new fronts that are fraught with hot war. You know them
as well as I do. The NATO military build-up is going on in the Baltic regions, particularly in the
three small Baltic countries, Poland, and if we include missile defense, Romania. That's right on
Russia's border, and in Ukraine. You know that story. That's a proxy civil war right on Russia's
border, and then of course in Syria, where American and Russian aircraft and Syrian aircraft are
flying over the same airspace.
And there is the utter demonization of Putin in this country. It is just beyond anything that the
American political elite ever said about Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and the rest. If you demonize the
other side, it makes negotiating harder.
You just said that Ukraine is a civil war. What
was the Russian annexation of Crimea?
There's a long history, but it is a civil war in the sense that Ukraine is a country.
We
agree on that.
And a nation, but a country that has long been deeply divided by history or by God. I mean, we're
talking ethnicity, language, religion, political tilting. One part tilts toward Russia, one part
tilts toward the West. Many millions of Ukrainians and Russians have intermarried over the years.
This is a country that always had the potential to either break apart or launch into civil war. The
events of 2014, for which both sides are highly culpable, initiated a civil war. This entourage around
Putin, one segment of it was absolutely 1,000 percent convinced that NATO was headed via Kiev to
Crimea. Had Crimea fallen in any way to NATO, any way, even in the shadow of NATO, Putin would have
had to either go to war or resign. No Russian leader would have been able to sustain that kind of
defeat.
Gallup did a
poll afterward that 80-some percent of Crimeans wanted to be reunited with Russia.
You're explaining the way Putin and his advisers were thinking, which I agree is important
context, but that doesn't give you the right to invade a sovereign country regardless of what a Gallup
poll may say.
Isaac, come on. Great powers preach international law, and they do what
they think they must.
If a province in any country votes for independence certainly the Crimeans did. There's just no
question that that was a legitimate referendum. People get a little confused about what the choice
was.
But this referendum was after the Russians had gone in.
No, no, no. Well ... wait, wait, wait, wait. Russia was already there by treaty. There were approximately
23,000 Russian soldiers at the naval base in Crimea, at Sevastopol. It was an invasion only in the
sense that they left the base on Crimea.
[The idea of Crimea being part of Russia] was alive in
Russia for years and years. Putin was never interested in it. ... That was a sleeping dog, which
should not have been awakened, but the events of 2014 awakened it. Once that happened, it was close
to inevitable that Russia would proceed with the annexation of Crimea, which was a part of Russia
for 300 years.
What's now Pakistan was part of India for a long time. That doesn't mean India can go in
and take Lahore tomorrow.
You know if we follow your logic, we're going to end up in Texas.
We got to stay in modern history where leaders have a memory.
You and I are going to end up in Texas?
Well, you know what I mean. Texas wasn't
always ours. The point is how far back in history do we go?
That's my point. Anyway, what did you mean when you said leakers here had become a fourth
branch of government, and one intent on undermining Trump?
When I was asked what's driving
the leaking, because you would agree that virtually every day almost there's a new news story that's
based on a leak. You have to go back to when it began, which was the summer of 2016. The Clinton
campaign was deeply involved. You know the story of this dossier right?
Yes.
The one BuzzFeed published?
I do.
It's the one that has urinating in the Ritz-Carlton hotel.*
I was trying to get you to keep going without saying that, but there you go.
Well,
take it out. But there's a serious point here. CNN, where they broadcast 1,000 hours about this dossier
as though it's authentic, says it won't repeat that part because it's too salacious. No, the reason
is if you broadcast that part, people would realize the whole thing is bullshit.
I don't want to go down in a subway and get blown up. It's going to happen. The Russians are excellent
at this. They've got great intelligence. We're pretty good-not as good as the Russians. We need to
combine it all. I see that this kind of alliance is good; we move on then to finding the solution
in Ukraine and in the Baltic region. That's what Reagan did. Do you remember that Reagan going to
Geneva, I think it was November 1985? Then two years later-I think this is right-he and Gorbachev
for the first time in history, Isaac, abolished an entire category of nuclear weapons. This is what
I want. This is probably what's not possible.
Steve, I really appreciate you taking the
time to talk with me. I hope when this is printed that you will believe it is real news and not fake
news.
No, no, no. Let me make a distinction. Opinion, what you and I think, is real news. It's our news.
It's what we think. But when I read in the newspaper that Carter Page was somehow a Russian agent,
I had plenty of reasons to know that that is really a super bogus report.
"... The comments under that piece are depressing. US liberals are such dumb assholes, disturbing how they're totally buying the anti-Russian narrative without any thought for the possible consequences. ..."
"... Cohen is an intelligent, accurate commentator and historian on Russian matters. The lamestream media, including Slate as indicated by the interviewer and other articles, seem to have it in for Russia in the manner of fascist propaganda. Of course, the fact Russia has a large store of nukes, makes the prevailing propaganda meme not only criminal but nihilistically stupid. ..."
The comments under that piece are depressing. US liberals are such dumb assholes, disturbing
how they're totally buying the anti-Russian narrative without any thought for the possible consequences.
Cohen is an intelligent, accurate commentator and historian on Russian matters. The lamestream
media, including Slate as indicated by the interviewer and other articles, seem to have it in
for Russia in the manner of fascist propaganda. Of course, the fact Russia has a large store of
nukes, makes the prevailing propaganda meme not only criminal but nihilistically stupid.
@German_reader
They robotically follow the party propaganda line like nihilist fascist lemmings almost like
those following the prevailing view during the tausendjaehrige.
Breathtaking how WITHIN DAYS after November 8, 2016 all the former Russia-loving Left-Totalitarians
did a smooth 180 and now spout anti-Russian rhetoric that would have seemed overwrought to Cold
Warriors back in the 1950s.
It is easy for them. Till June 22, 1941 all communist in America were isolationists and supported
America First, Charles Lindbergh. They were writing pacifist pamphlets and composed anti-war songs,
etc. And within one day they switched 180. Took them some effort to cover up traces of their isolationist
and pacifist episode.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-when-communism-inspired-americans/#comment-1855425
"Professor Zinn, in May of 1941 your friend, Pete Seeger, produced an album called Songs for
John Doe which was a collection of blue collar songs that included one called The Ballad of
October 16th. [At the time, Pete Seeger had formed his first commercial band called the Almanac
Singers.] That song demonstrated yours and Pete's pacifist philosophy by excoriating Franklin
and Eleanor Roosevelt for urging United States entry into World War II to fight Hitler. Shortly
after the album's release, you and Pete were desperately trying to retrieve all the copies
to take them out of circulation. Exactly what happened between May and June of 1941 to turn
you from devoted anti-war activists into sabre-rattling patriots, resulting in your enlisting
in the Army Air Force as a bombardier?"
@Eagle
Eye The Clintonistas and Berniacs have shamelessly united to attack Trump, cynically using
the fakest of fake news. This weekend they're marching "for Truth." If that were true, why aren't
they marching to investigate Hillary and who killed Seth Rich?
But no. On June 3 they're out to get Trump. "Demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election
and ties to Donald Trump, his administration and his associates." https://www.marchfortruth.info/
Meanwhile, barely a peep about illegal, unconstitutional attacks on Syria, or huge sale of
arms to Saudis that will likely end up with terrorists. A better investigation would be Who Killed
Seth Rich. Ask for one here:
On July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice in the early morning as he walked back to his
house in Washington D.C. Immediately after the crime, the death was called an armed robbery
but none of Seth Rich's belongings were taken from him.
Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth
Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up. MSM is not covering
this murder, instead pushing it to the side, so it is now up to us.
The facts do not add up, law enforcement stopped covering the crime, and now it is time
for us to fight for justice. Seth Rich deserves this.
14.05.2017 International Cyber Attack: Roots Traced to US National Security Agency
Over 45,000 ransomware attacks have been tracked in large-scale attacks across Europe and Asia
- particularly Russia and China - as well as attacks in the US and South America.
Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story
It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used
a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's
not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game!
Is it just me, or is this an exceptionally awful interview?
Whether you agree with Cohen or not (IMHO he certainly says some silly things there), the interviewer
is demagogical and biased in the extreme. I suppose that's sort of the norm for them?
By the way, is there any evidence of 1) Putin ordering someone killed or 2) The Collusion out
there yet? If read uncritically, the interview gives the impression that of course there is, all
those smart and good people say so. If read critically one notices that if there's any evidence
of anything, it's never mentioned. But if only Russia had a more liberal media environment, then
surely
Stephen F. Cohen is one of the few honest and patriotic Jews living in America who's capably
of telling the unvarnished truth. I regularly seek out his writings for an objective appraisal
of U.S. – Russia relations.
Unfortunately, there are ten Victoria Nuland's, William Kristol's and Chuck U. Schumer's to
every one Stephen F. Cohen.
Exceptionalism: the condition of being different from the norm; also : a theory
expounding the exceptionalism especially of a nation or region.
May 29, 2017 " Information
Clearing House " - There are many theories surrounding the origin of American exceptionalism.
The most popular in US folklore, being that it describes America's unique character as a "free" nation
founded on democratic ideals and civil liberties. The Declaration of Independence from British colonial
rule is the foundation of this theory and has persevered throughout the often violent history of
the US since its birth as a free nation.
Over time, exceptionalism has come to represent superiority in the minds and hearts of Americans.
Belief in their economic, military and ideological supremacy is what has motivated successive US
governments to invest in shaping the world in their superior image with little or no regard for the
destruction left in the wake of their exceptional hegemony.
In considering itself, exceptional, the US has extricated itself from any legal obligation to
adhere to either International law or even the common moral laws that should govern Humanity. The
US has become exceptionally lawless and authoritarian particularly in its intolerant neo-colonialist
foreign policy. The colonized have become the colonialists, concealing their brutal savagery behind
a veneer of missionary zeal that they are converting the world to their form of exceptionalist Utopia.
Such is the media & marketing apparatus that supports this superiority complex, the majority of
US congress exist within its echo chamber and are willing victims of its indoctrination. The power
of the propaganda vortex pulls them in and then radiates outwards, infecting all in its path. Self-extraction
from this oligarchical perspective is perceived as a revolutionary act that challenges the core of
US security so exceptionalism becomes the modus vivendi.
Just as Israel considers itself 'the chosen people' from a religious perspective, the US considers
itself the chosen nation to impose its version of Democratic reform and capitalist hegemony the world
over. One can see why Israel and the US make such symbiotic bedfellows.
"The fatal war for humanity is the war with Russia and China toward which Washington is driving
the US and Washington's NATO and Asian puppet states. The bigotry of the US power elite is rooted
in its self-righteous doctrine that stipulates America as the "indispensable country" ~
Paul Craig Roberts: Washington Drives the World Towards War.
So why do the American people accept US criminal hegemony, domestic and foreign brutal tyranny
& neo-colonialist blood-letting with scant protest? Why do the European vassal states not rise up
against this authoritarian regime that flaunts international law and drags its NATO allies down the
path to complete lawlessness and diplomatic ignominy?
What is Gaslighting?
The psychological term "Gaslighting" comes from a 1944 Hollywood classic movie called Gaslight.
Gaslighting describes the abuse employed by a narcissist to instil in their victim's mind, an extreme
anxiety and confusion to the extent where they no longer have faith in their own powers of logic,
reason and judgement. These gaslighting techniques were adopted by central intelligence agencies
in the US and Europe as part of their psychological warfare methods, used primarily during torture
or interrogation.
Gaslighting as an abuser's modus operandi, involves, specifically, the withholding of factual
information and its replacement with false or fictional information designed to confuse and disorientate.
This subtle and Machiavellian process eventually undermines the mental stability of its victims reducing
them to such a depth of insecurity and identity crisis that they become entirely dependent upon their
abuser for their sense of reality and even identity.
Gaslighting involves a step by step psychological process to manipulate and destabilize its victim.
It is built up over time and consists of repetitive information feeds that enter the victim's subconscious
over a period of time, until it is fully registered on the subconscious "hard disk" and cannot be
overridden by the conscious floppy disk. Put more simply, it is brainwashing.
" Overall, the main reason for gaslighting is to create a dynamic where the abuser has complete
control over their victim so that they are so weak that they are very easy to manipulate." ~
Alex Myles
Three Stages of Gaslighting: Stage One
The first stage depends upon trust in the integrity and unimpeachable intentions of the abuser,
a state of reliance that has been engendered by the abuser's artful self-promotion and ingratiating
propaganda. Once this trust is gained, the abuser will begin to subtly undermine it, creating situations
and environments where the victim will begin to doubt their own judgement. Eventually the victim
will rely entirely upon the abuser to alleviate their uncertainty and to restore their sense of reality
which is in fact that of the abuser.
Stage Two
The second stage, defence, is a process by which the abuser isolates the victim, not only from
their own sense of identity but from the validation of their peers. They are made to feel that their
opinion is worthless, discredited, down-right weird. In political circles they would be labelled
a conspiracy theorist, a dissident, a terror apologist. As a consequence, the victim will withdraw
from society and cease to express themselves for fear of ridicule, judgement or punishment.
This stage can also be compared to Stockholm Syndrome where a hostage or captive is reduced,by
psychological mind games, back to infantile dependency upon their captor. Narcissistic abuse bonds
the victim to the aggressor via trauma. Stockholm Syndrome bonds the victim to the aggressor via
regression to an infantile state where the abuser/aggressor becomes the "parent" who will rescue
the victim from imminent annihilation. Both methods tap into the victim's survival mechanisms to
gain and maintain control.
Stage Three
The final stage is depression. A life under the tyrannical rule of a narcissist drives the victim
into a state of extreme confusion. They are stripped of dignity & self-reliance. They, ultimately
exist in an information vacuum which is only filled by that which the abuser deems suitable or relevant.
This can eventually invoke symptoms of PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]. Flashbacks, constant
apprehension, hyper vigilance, mind paralysis, rage and even violence. The process is complete and
the victim has been reduced to a willing accomplice in the abusers creation of a very distorted reality.
Exceptionalism or Narcissism?
We are currently seeing the transformation of US exceptionalism into an abusive Narcissism .
The gargantuan apparatus of mind bending and controlling is being put into hyper drive by the
ruling elite. We are inundated with propaganda that challenges our sense of reality but only after
being "tenderized" by the fear factor. Fear of "terror", fear of war, fear of financial insecurity,
fear of gun violence, fear of our own shadow. Once we are suitably quaking in our boots, in comes
the rendition of reality that relieves our anxiety. If we challenge this version of events we are
labelled a conspiracy theorist, a threat to security. We are hounded, discredited, slandered and
ridiculed. We are isolated and threatened.
Wars are started in the same way. Despite the hindsight that should enable us to see it coming,
the process swings into motion with resounding success. The ubiquitous dictator, the oligarch who
threatens to destroy all that the US and her allies represent which of course is, freedom, equality
& civil liberty all wrapped up in the Democracy shiny paper and tied with the exceptionalist ribbon.
Next the false flag to engender fear, terror and to foment sectarian strife. The support of a
"legitimate" organic, indigenous "revolution" conveniently emerging in tandem with US ambitions for
imposing their model of governance upon a target nation. The arming of "freedom fighters", the securing
of mercenary additions to these manufactured proxy forces. All this is sold in the name of freedom
and democracy to a public that is already in a state of anxiety and insecurity, lacking in judgement
or insight into any other reality but that of their "abuser".
The NGO Complex Deployment
Finally, the Humanitarians are deployed. The forces for "good", the vanguard of integrity and
ethical intervention. The power that offers all lost souls a stake-holding in the salvation of sovereign
nations that have lost their way and need rescuing. A balm for a damaged soul, to know they can leave
their doubts and fears in such trustworthy hands as HRW, Amnesty International, they can assuage
their deep sense of guilt at the suffering being endured by the people of far flung nations because
they can depend upon the NGOs to provide absolution with minimal effort on their part. They don't
realise that NGOs are an integral part of their abuser's apparatus, operating on the leash of neo-colonialist
financing and influence. NGOs provide the optic through which the abuser will allow the victim to
perceive their world and once absorbed into this flawed prism the victim's own cognitive dissonance
will ensure they do not attempt a jail break.
In this state of oppressed consciousness the victim accepts what they are told. They accept that
the US can sell cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia that obliterate human beings and lay waste to essential
civilian infrastructure in Yemen. They accept that the US financially, ideologically & militarily
supports the illegal state of Israel and provides the arsenal of experimental weapons that maim and
mutilate children and civilians on a scale that is unimaginable. They accept that a crippling blockade
of the already impoverished and starving nation of Yemen is "necessary" to resolve the issues of
sectarian divisions that only exist in the minds of their Congressional abusers.
The majority of Americans accept mass murder under the pretext of the right to protect , because
their ability to form rational and reasoned opinions has been engineered out of them. This is now
the definition of US exceptionalism. It is their ability to manipulate the world into accepting their
lawlessness and global hegemony agenda. In seeking to impose its own image upon our world the US
has drifted so far from its founding principles, one wonders how they will ever return to them. They
have employed a recognised form of torture to ensure capitulation to their mission of world domination
which entails the mental, physical and spiritual torture of target civilian populations.
In conclusion, the US has indeed achieved exceptionalism. The US has become an exceptional global
executioner and persecutor of Humanity. Imperialism is a euphemism for the depths of abuse the US
is inflicting upon the people of this world.
Our only hope is to break the cycle of abuse with empathy for the victim and with appreciation
for the years of brainwashing that precedes their agonizing passive-aggressive apathy towards crimes
being committed in "their name".
This was an email I received recently from one courageous young American girl whose epiphany is
testament to the resilience and survival instinct of the human spirit.
" My name is Caroline and I am a 22 year old US citizen. I only fairly recently discovered the
truth about Empire/NATO's activities in Syria and Libya and so many other countries (thanks to writers
like Andre Vltchek, Cory Morningstar, Forrest Palmer). I am sickened when I remember that I signed
some of those Avaaz petitions and I feel horrified at knowing that I have Syrian and Libyan blood
on my hands. I want to believe that I'm not "really" guilty because I really thought (as I had been
told) that I was not doing something bad at the time, but still, what I did contributed to the suffering
of those people and I want to do something to atone in at least some small way, even though I probably
can't "make up" for what I did or erase my crime.
If it's not too much trouble, could you please tell me what you think I should do, if there is
anything?"
She deserves an answer
***
Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and s ince 2011, she has spent most of
her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer
and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement,
and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her blog
The Wall Will Fall .
"... Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian "hacking" claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed ..."
"... All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. US corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the case. ..."
"... There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact to the . . . ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Business Standard ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the principled stand "I don't do evidence," testified that "the fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to act to prevent further instances of that." He provided no evidence. ..."
"... Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election." ( March for Truth .) ..."
"... Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is steadily rising in the US public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact. ..."
"... Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the "Russian influence on the election" is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi. ..."
Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian "hacking"
claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed
When the US public was told that Spain had blown up the Maine, or Vietnam had returned fire,
or Iraq had stockpiled weapons, or Libya was planning a massacre, the claims were straightforward
and disprovable.
Before people began referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, somebody had to lie that it had
happened, and there had to be an understanding of what had supposedly happened. No investigation
into whether anything had happened could have taken as its starting point the certainty that a Vietnamese
attack or attacks had happened. And no investigation into whether a Vietnamese attack had happened
could have focused its efforts on unrelated matters, such as whether anyone in Vietnam had ever done
business with any relatives or colleagues of Robert McNamara.
All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome
of the 2016 US presidential election. US corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide
the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing
whether any such thing is the case.
There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia
supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact
to the . . .
"Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election" (
Yahoo ).
"Russian attempts to disrupt the election" (
New York Times ).
"Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election" (
ABC ).
"Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election" (
The Intercept ).
"a multi-pronged investigation to uncover the full extent of Russia's election-meddling" (
Time ).
"Russian interference in the US election" (
CNN ).
"Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking" we're told by the
New York Times , but what is "election hacking"? Its definition seems to vary widely.
And what evidence is there of Russia having done it?
The "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" even exists as a factual event
in
Wikipedia , not as an allegation or a theory. But the factual nature of it is not so much asserted
as brushed aside.
Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the
principled stand "I don't do evidence," testified that "the fact that the Russians tried to influence
resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election
so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous
and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try
to act to prevent further instances of that." He provided no evidence.
Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian
interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more about the role Russian
state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election." (
March for Truth .)
Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is
steadily rising in the US public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility.
People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact.
Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions
of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction
thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the "Russian
influence on the election" is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the
Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi
WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or
whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi.
A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed. There is
no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered
last year) leaked Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both
claims have passionate believers.
Still, the claims about Russia are unique in their wide proliferation, broad acceptance, and status
as something to be constantly referred to as though already established, constantly augmented by
other Russia-related stories that add nothing to the central claim. This phenomenon, in my view,
is as dangerous as any lies and fabrications coming out of the racist right.
"... As a social scientist, it's been frustrating to listen to liberals and Democratic supporters authoritatively rant about Russia stealing the U.S. election. I've seen no compelling evidence that the anti-Clinton stories covered by Wikileaks ..."
"... Suspicion of the "Russiagate" investigation is also compounded by the fact that the Democratic Party is desperate to direct attention away from its unpopularity with the public. Gallup ..."
"... Conceding the questionable foundation of "Russiagate" to date, however, doesn't mean we should grant the Trump administration a free pass on corruption issues and on Trump's transactional, "everything's for sale" approach to "governing." ..."
"... While the charges associated with "Russiagate" and foreign election meddling are unsubstantiated at best, and trumped up at worst (no pun intended), there are legitimate concerns with this administration – even more so than previous ones – with its shameless attempts to combine politicking with tit-for-tat money exchanges with foreign officials. Shady business dealings were a real issue with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had monetary connections with the Russian government, receiving fees from Russian state media propaganda outlet Russia Today ..."
The investigation of the Trump administration continues with the appointment of Robert Mueller
as special counsel to the inquiry into Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 election. I've refrained
from writing about "Russiagate" to this point, because of how poorly the investigation has been handled
by political leaders and the media.
Scarcely do I see a recognition from these political actors that the report from the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence, which supposedly provided evidence of Russian election meddling,
provided no definitive documentation of a direct link between the Trump campaign and the Russian
government. The report concluded that Vladimir Putin personally ordered email hacks of the Democratic
Party to uncover potentially embarrassing information on Hillary Clinton, and to boost Trump's chances
of winning the election. But the report failed to flesh out specific details documenting alleged
Russian efforts to influence the election.
The public was expected to take the charges on faith. This is not to say that Russia is innocent
of trying to sway the election. I have no hard evidence one way or the other on that question, but
as someone who believes in evidence-based reasoning, I don't accept claims that are made without
documentation.
As a social scientist, it's been frustrating to listen to liberals and Democratic supporters authoritatively
rant about Russia stealing the U.S. election. I've seen no compelling evidence that the anti-Clinton
stories covered by Wikileaks had a substantive impact on voter choice. Most of these stories
were inside-baseball kind of stuff, including the "revelation" that John Podesta thought Hillary
Clinton has poor political instincts, that the Clinton campaign didn't like Bernie Sanders (a shocker!),
that Clinton supported "open borders" free trade agreements (you don't say?), and that she delivered
a Wall Street speech voicing support for adopting "public" and "private position[s]" on political
issues (politicians lie?!?). In an era of superficiality in American elections, it's also fair to
ask how much attention citizens pay to these kinds of stories. Election scholars have long found
that much of the public votes for candidates based on extremely superficial considerations such as
physical attractiveness, use of buzz words, and an amorphous belief in a candidates' "character."
What little empirical evidence that's been presented so far raises doubts about the impact of
alleged Russian spying on the election. As Harry Egan of 538 writes, despite considerable
public interest in Wikileaks and the election, "Clinton's drop in the polls [in late October
and early November] doesn't line up perfectly with the surge in Wikileaks interest" among
the public, as seen in national google searches. "When Wikileaks had its highest search
day in early October, Clinton's poll numbers were rising. They continued to go up for another two
weeks, even as Wikileaks was releasing emails. That is, there isn't one pivotal 'aha!' point
which shows that Wikileaks caused Clinton's numbers to drop There just isn't a clean-cut
story in the data."
The evidence that does exist suggesting that individual news stories influenced the polls cuts
against the Russia-election meddling thesis. In the fall of 2016, Nate Silver summarized various
election-related events and their potential impact as follows: "when a story has broken through to
dominate the news cycle, it usually has moved the polls in the direction that people expected. Trump's
feuds with Judge Gonzalo Curiel and the family of the American soldier Humayun Khan corresponded
with periods when he declined in the polls. The first debate turned into a disaster for Trump in
a way that was predictable based on instant-reaction polls. Trump's convention was a mess, whereas
Clinton's was conventionally effective, and she got a much larger convention bounce. However, Clinton
was hurt by her email scandal resurfacing as a major story line in July. And she declined in the
polls after her 'basket of deplorables' comments and Sept. 11 health scare." Notice that none of
the events cited by Silver were tied back directly to "Russiagate." It seems much more likely that
the re-announcement of the FBI's Clinton email investigation in late-October was a key factor in
swinging what was already a close race.
Suspicion of the "Russiagate" investigation is also compounded by the fact that the Democratic
Party is desperate to direct attention away from its unpopularity with the public. Gallup
's polling numbers for May 2017 find that just 40 percent of Americans hold a "favorable" view
of the Democratic Party, compared to 39 percent sharing a favorable view of Republicans. And the
Democrats' favorability numbers are in decline, falling from 45 percent in November 2016. The effort
to define Democratic politics through opposition to Trump has backfired. The party has failed over
the last half-year to cultivate any meaningful support from the public. The Democrats have no real
identity anymore outside of resisting Trump, and this kind of "identity" is not something one can
build public support around in terms of consistently winning elections. Hillary Clinton's election
loss exposed the Democrats as a party that's lost touch with the public and is tone deaf to the economic
troubles afflicting Americans.
Conceding the questionable foundation of "Russiagate" to date, however, doesn't mean we should
grant the Trump administration a free pass on corruption issues and on Trump's transactional, "everything's
for sale" approach to "governing." Taking an open and honest look at the wheeling and dealing of
the Trump administration, it would be foolish to deny that something fishy is going on in Washington.
Bizarrely, and in a sign of his incompetence, Trump has gone out of his way to suggest that he has
something to hide regarding the Russia investigation. What it is that he may be hiding I can't say
for sure without further evidence, but his behavior up to this point screams scandal. Perhaps, like
former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, he is hiding prominent business investments with Russia.
Trump has consistently and suspiciously refused to release his tax returns, fueling speculation that
he's seeking to hide dubious financial connections with other countries. Trump's stubbornness extends
beyond the "witch hunt" he now laments, as he refused to release these returns during the election
season, prior to the emergence of "Russiagate."
Trump's erratic moves regarding the FBI also suggest something strange is afoot. When you fire
the head of the FBI, and admit in an interview with Lester Holt that it was motivated by Comey's
Russia investigation, that's a red flag. When news stories report that Trump demanded the end of
the Flynn investigation, and when reports suggest Comey's firing was the result of his refusal to
end said investigation, that's another red flag. If nothing else, it opens Trump up to charges of
obstruction of justice. And when Trump has a sit down with Russian diplomats informing them that,
now that Comey's gone, it frees the president up and relieves "great pressure" on him, that's a big
red flag. If Trump is innocent of dubious business or political ties to foreign governments, why
is he going out of his way to play the part of a guilty man?
While the charges associated with "Russiagate" and foreign election meddling are unsubstantiated
at best, and trumped up at worst (no pun intended), there are legitimate concerns with this administration
– even more so than previous ones – with its shameless attempts to combine politicking with tit-for-tat
money exchanges with foreign officials. Shady business dealings were a real issue with former National
Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had monetary connections with the Russian government, receiving
fees from Russian state media propaganda outlet Russia Today . Flynn blatantly lied about
his financial ties with Russia to federal investigators. And Flynn's economic ties to Russia were
no laughing matter. Such ties coexisted alongside Flynn's private sit-down with the Russian ambassador,
Sergey Kislyak, to discuss the lifting of U.S. sanctions against Russia.
Flynn has now opened himself up to federal charges, specifically to violating the Logan Act, which
prohibits civilians outside the Executive branch from engaging in foreign policy making. Beyond this
legal infraction, though, we see the broader problem of an administration that believes policy is
just another commodity to be bought and sold like any good or service on the market. Those concerned
with basic ethics in government should be displeased with the ham-fisted horse trading engaged in
by Flynn, who accepted money from a foreign government while promising policy reforms that would
benefit said government.
When government officials seek financial gain in exchange for policy quid-pro-quos, it raises
serious ethical questions. That Trump still refuses to recognize how inappropriate Flynn's relationship
was, and that he reportedly wants to bring Flynn back into the Executive fold once the investigation
is over, demonstrates how oblivious he is to basic ethical considerations in government. Fynn's financial
opportunism, of course, is by no means new to Washington. Other political officials regularly cash
in on their business connections, as Obama recently did by giving a lucrative speech on Wall Street.
But even Obama knew to give such speeches after he had served in office, rather than engaging
in clumsy clientelism of the kind done by Flynn.
The Trump administration has consistently demonstrated contempt for transparency and dismissed
the need to avoid potential conflicts of interest between the Executive and lobbyists. Trump also
demands that non-partisan civil servants pledge "loyalty" to him, even in adversarial cases, like
when former FBI director James Comey was investigating the Executive branch with regard to Russia.
In doing so, Trump demonstrates a commitment to a "fiefdom" style of politics, in which he serves
as a feudal lord over political subordinates. Within this fiefdom, Trump's signaled that Washington
is open for business when it comes to horse trading financial benefits for policy outcomes. His openness
to using the office for financial enrichment is apparent on multiple levels, as seen in the following
instances:
Refusing to sell off his financial investments, or at the very least put them in a blind trust,
prior to serving as president. Trump instead put his children in charge of managing his assets.
There is no way to guarantee that he won't be passively or actively involved in influencing future
investments as president, or that Trump won't make policy decisions in the White House with the
goal of enriching his already existing assets at the expense of the public good.
Relying on campaign advisors and other officials who express various conflicts of interest
regarding personal financial gain and influence peddling. One example is Paul Manafort, the former
chairman of Trump's campaign, who profited as a consultant for a pro-Russia Ukrainian political
party and working for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
Trump's recently announced $110 billion arms deal with the Saudi government, conveniently
coupled with Saudi pledges to invest $20 billion in American "infrastructure" via the Blackstone
Group, a corporation whose CEO Steve Schwarzman has close personal ties to Donald Trump, and another
$100 million to Ivanka Trump's proposed "Women's Entrepreneurs Fund."
There should be nothing shocking about the above stories coming from a president who "authored"
a book titled "The Art of the Deal," and who consistently bragged that, if elected, he would run
the executive via a "deal making," business approach to policy making.
This administration demonstrates contempt for efforts to shine a light on its inappropriate "deal
making." Most recently, Trump sought to block the Office of Government Ethics from securing the names
of former lobbyists who secured waivers to work for the White House and other federal agencies. As
the New York Times reported: "Dozens of former lobbyists and industry lawyers are working
in the Trump administration, which has hired them at a much higher rate than the previous administration.
Keeping the waivers confidential would make it impossible to know whether any such officials are
violating federal ethics rules or have been given a pass to ignore them."
... ... ...
Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He
holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: Selling War, Selling
Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2015).
He can be reached at: [email protected]
"... For those who don't know what the NSC-68 actually was, it is essentially a directive that militarized the conflict between US capitalism and Soviet communism. ..."
"... It was based on the correct understanding that US capitalism required open access to the resources and markets of the entire planet and that the Soviet Union represented the greatest threat to that access. ..."
"... When one recalls that this period in US history was also a period when the FBI and the US Congress were going after leftists and progressives in the name of a certain right-wing ideological purity, the power of the US secret police becomes quite apparent. ..."
"... At times, the seemingly absolute power of the CIA and FBI have caused the US Executive Branch to try and set up other means and methods in order to circumvent that power. Two examples of this that come quickly to mind are the establishment of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) by the Kennedy administration in 1961-1962 and the failed attempt (known as the Huston plan after its creator Tom Huston) by the Nixon White House to centralize the direction of all US government intelligence operations in the White House. ..."
"... There is no soft coup taking place in DC. The entire government has been owned by big business and the banking industry for more than a century, if not since its inception. That ownership has been dominated by the military-industrial complex since about the same time as when the aforementioned agencies were created. That is no coincidence. However, their role in the current uproar over Russia and Michael Flynn is not because they are taking over the government. It is because their current leadership represents the factions of the US establishment that were removed from power in November 2016. ..."
"... Donald Trump is not against the so-called deep state. He is against it being used against himself and his cohorts. In the world of capitalist power, the factions Trump represents are not the same factions represented by the presidents former FBI director Comey served-the factions represented by Bush and Obama. He understands that if he can install individuals in key positions at the FBI, CIA, DHS and other security and military agencies, he and his allies will be more than happy to use the power of these agencies against their opponents. ..."
"... When the ruling class is in crisis, as it is now, the job of the left is not to choose one side or the other. Nor is it to accept the narrative provided by one or other faction of the rulers, especially when that narrative supports the police state. Instead, it is the Left's job to go to the root of the crisis and organize resistance to the ruling class itself. ..."
"... Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: [email protected] . ..."
The deep state is not some enigmatic entity that operates outside the US government. It is the
US state itself. Like all elements of that state, the so-called deep state exists to enforce the
economic supremacy of US capitalism. It does so primarily via the secret domestic and international
police forces like the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies. The operations of these agencies
run the gamut from surveillance to propaganda to covert and overt military actions. Naturally, this
so-called deep state operates according to their own rules; rules which ultimately insure its continued
existence and relevance. Although it can be argued that it was the 1950 National Security Directive
known as NSC-68
along with the Congressional Bill creating the Central Intelligence Agency that launched the
"deep state" as we understand it, a broader understanding of the "deep state" places its genesis
perhaps a century prior to that date. In other words, a structure designed to maintain the economic
and political domination of certain powerful US capitalists existed well back into the nineteenth
century. However, the centralization of that power began in earnest in the years following World
War Two.
For those who don't know what the NSC-68 actually was, it is essentially a directive that
militarized the conflict between US capitalism and Soviet communism.
It was based on the correct understanding that US capitalism required open access to
the resources and markets of the entire planet and that the Soviet Union represented the greatest
threat to that access. Not only did this mean the US military would grow in size, it also ensured
that the power of the intelligence sector would expand both in terms of its reach and its budget.
When one recalls that this period in US history was also a period when the FBI and the US Congress
were going after leftists and progressives in the name of a certain right-wing ideological purity,
the power of the US secret police becomes quite apparent.
As the 1950s turned into the 1960s, the so-called deep state's power continued to grow. Some of
its better known manifestations include the failed attempt to invade revolutionary Cuba that became
known as the Bay of Pigs, the use of psychoactive drugs on unsuspecting individuals as part of a
mind control study, and numerous attempts to subvert governments considered anti-American. Among
the latter actions one can include covert operations against the Vietnamese independence forces and
the murder of the Congolese president Patrice Lumumba. In terms of the "deep state's" domestic operations,
this period saw the intensification of spying on and disrupting various groups involved in the civil
rights and antiwar organizing. Many elements of the domestic operation would become known as COINTELPRO
and were directed by the FBI.
Although the agencies of the so-called deep state operate as part of the US state, this does not
mean that those agencies are of one mind. Indeed, like any power structure, there are various factions
represented. This means that there are disagreements over policies, priorities, direction, and personnel.
The only certainty is that all of its members agree on the need to maintain the supremacy of US capital
in the world. At times, the seemingly absolute power of the CIA and FBI have caused the US Executive
Branch to try and set up other means and methods in order to circumvent that power. Two examples
of this that come quickly to mind are the establishment of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
by the Kennedy administration in 1961-1962 and the failed attempt (known as the Huston plan after
its creator Tom Huston) by the Nixon White House to centralize the direction of all US government
intelligence operations in the White House.
There is no soft coup taking place in DC. The entire government has been owned by big business
and the banking industry for more than a century, if not since its inception. That ownership has
been dominated by the military-industrial complex since about the same time as when the aforementioned
agencies were created. That is no coincidence. However, their role in the current uproar over Russia
and Michael Flynn is not because they are taking over the government. It is because their current
leadership represents the factions of the US establishment that were removed from power in November
2016.
Donald Trump is not against the so-called deep state. He is against it being used against
himself and his cohorts. In the world of capitalist power, the factions Trump represents are not
the same factions represented by the presidents former FBI director Comey served-the factions represented
by Bush and Obama. He understands that if he can install individuals in key positions at the FBI,
CIA, DHS and other security and military agencies, he and his allies will be more than happy to use
the power of these agencies against their opponents. Indeed, he would most likely greatly enhance
those agencies' power, making a further mockery of the US Constitution. If Trump is able to get the
agencies of the deep state to work for the factions he represents-either by replacing those loyal
to others not named Trump or by cajoling and coercing them to change their loyalty-he will think
the deep state is a great thing. In this way he is no different than every other US president. He
understands that whoever controls the deep state controls the US. The struggle we are witnessing
between the FBI and the Trump White House is part of a power struggle between US power elites.
When the ruling class is in crisis, as it is now, the job of the left is not to choose one
side or the other. Nor is it to accept the narrative provided by one or other faction of the rulers,
especially when that narrative supports the police state. Instead, it is the Left's job to go to
the root of the crisis and organize resistance to the ruling class itself.
A pretty accurate (for Vox ;-) description of Neo-McCarthyism hysteria that the USA currently experience...
Notable quotes:
"... Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her 283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler ( 226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers ). ..."
"... Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years. ..."
"... Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she refused and called me a "dickhead." But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas on Twitter. ..."
"... One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared" (the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter since 2013 ). ..."
"... "Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me. "That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out." ..."
"... dezinformatsiya ..."
"... These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. ..."
"... The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, is kind of a popularizer of the Russiasphere. It reports the same kind of extreme, thinly sourced stuff - for instance, a story titled "CIA now says there's more than one tape of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes" - often, though not always, sourced to Mensch and company. This seems to personally irk Mensch, who has occasionally suggested the Palmer Report is ripping her off . ..."
"... Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to Quantcast , a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook, according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000. ..."
"... "Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs, especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics, that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite." ..."
"... actual conspiracy. ..."
"... For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism": ..."
"... What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest in factual accuracy. ..."
"... Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives. ..."
President Donald Trump is
about to resign as a result of the Russia scandal.
Bernie Sanders
and Sean
Hannity are Russian agents. The
Russians have paid off House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz to the tune of $10 million, using
Trump as a go-between. Paul Ryan is a
traitor for
refusing to investigate Trump's Russia ties. Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand was
a secret Russian
agent charged with discrediting the American conservative movement.
These are all claims you can find made on a new and growing sector of the internet that functions
as a fake news bubble for liberals, something I've dubbed the Russiasphere. The mirror image of Breitbart
and InfoWars on the right, it focuses nearly exclusively on real and imagined connections between
Trump and Russia. The tone is breathless: full of unnamed intelligence sources, certainty that Trump
will soon be imprisoned, and fever dream factual assertions that no reputable media outlet has managed
to confirm.
Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian
and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her
283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch
is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler (
226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer
Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers
).
There's also a handful of websites, like
Palmer Report , that seem devoted nearly
exclusively to spreading bizarre assertions like the theory that Ryan and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell
funneled Russian money to Trump - a story that spread widely among the site's
70,000 Facebook fans.
Beyond the numbers, the unfounded left-wing claims, like those on the right, are already seeping
into the mainstream discourse. In March,
the New York Times published an op-ed by Mensch instructing members of Congress as to how they
should proceed with the Russia investigation ("I have some relevant experience," she wrote). Two
months prior to that, Mensch had penned a
lengthy letter to Vladimir Putin titled "Dear Mr. Putin, Let's Play Chess" - in which she claims
to have discovered that Edward Snowden was part of a years-in-the-making Russian plot to discredit
Hillary Clinton.
Last Thursday,
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) was forced to apologize for spreading a false claim that a New York grand
jury was investigating Trump and Russia. His sources, according to the Guardian's Jon Swaine, were
Mensch and Palmer:
Members of the Russiasphere see themselves as an essential counter to a media that's been too
cautious to get to the bottom of Trump's Russian ties.
"There's good evidence that the Kremlin was planning a secret operation to put Trump in the White
House back in 2014," Schindler told me. "With a few exceptions, the MSM [mainstream media] hasn't
exactly covered itself in glory with Kremlingate. They were slow to ask obvious questions about Trump
in 2016, and they're playing catch-up now, not always accurately."
Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded
speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole
of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years.
The fear is that this pollutes the party itself, derailing and discrediting the legitimate investigation
into Russia investigation. It also risks degrading the Democratic Party - helping elevate shameless
hucksters who know nothing about policy but are willing to spread misinformation in the service of
gaining power. We've already seen this story play out on the right, a story that ended in Trump's
election.
"One of the failures of the Republican Party is the way they let the birther movement metastasize
- and that ultimately helped Donald Trump make it to the White House," says Brendan Nyhan, a professor
at Dartmouth who studies the spread of false political beliefs. "We should worry about kind of pattern
being repeated."
Anatomy of a conspiracy theory
The Russiasphere doesn't have one unifying, worked-out theory - like "9/11 was an inside job"
or "Nazi gas chambers are a hoax." Instead, it's more like an attitude - a general sense that Russian
influence in the United States is pervasive and undercovered by the mainstream media. Everything
that happens in US politics is understood through this lens - especially actions taken by the Trump
administration, which is seen as Kremlin-occupied territory.
There are, of course, legitimate issues relating to Trump's ties to Russia - I've
written about them personally
over and
over again . There are even legitimate reasons to believe that Trump's campaign worked with Russian
hackers to undermine Hillary Clinton. That may or may not turn out to be true, but it is least plausible
and
somewhat supported by the available evidence .
The Russiasphere's assertions go way beyond that.
Take Mensch, who is probably the Russiasphere's most prominent voice. She actually did have one
legitimate scoop, reporting in November that the FBI had been granted a warrant to watch email traffic
between the Trump Organization and two Russian banks (
before anyone else had ). Since then, though, her ideas have taken a bit of a turn. In January,
she launched a blog - Patribotics - that's
exclusively dedicated to the Trump/Russia scandal. It's ... a lot.
Liberals fall for lies for the same reasons conservatives do: partisanship
"Sources with links to the intelligence community say it is believed that Carter Page went to
Moscow in early July carrying with him a pre-recorded tape of Donald Trump offering to change American
policy if he were to be elected, to make it more favorable to Putin," Mensch claimed in an
April post . "In exchange, Page was authorized directly by Trump to request the help of the Russian
government in hacking the election."
Another post , allegedly based on "sources with links to the intelligence community," claimed
that Trump, Mike Pence, and Paul Ryan were all going to be arrested on racketeering charges against
"the Republican party" owing to collaboration with Russia.
She's also suggested that
Anthony Weiner was brought down as part of a Russian plot to put the Clinton emails back in the
news:
I can exclusively report that there is ample evidence that suggests that Weiner was sexting
not with a 15 year old girl but with a hacker
, working for Russia, part of the North Carolina hacking group 'Crackas With Attitude', who
hacked the head of the CIA, and a great many FBI agents, police officers, and other law enforcement
officials.
And that the protests against police brutality in Ferguson were secretly a Russian plot:
Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she
refused and called me a
"dickhead."
But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas
on Twitter.
One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned
in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent
a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the
time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared"
(the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter
since 2013
).
"Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the
Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me.
"That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's
disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out."
Schindler's role in the Russiasphere is essentially as a validator, using his time working on
Russia at the NSA to make the theories bandied about by Mensch seem credible. Schindler peppers his
speech with terms pulled from Russian spycraft - like deza , short for dezinformatsiya
(disinformation), or Chekist
, a term used to describe the former spies who hold significant political positions in Putin's
Russia.
This lingo has become common among the Russiasphere, a sort of status symbol to show that its
members understand the real nature of the threat. Schindler and Mensch will often refer to their
enemies in the media and the Trump administration using the hashtag #TeamDeza, or accuse enemies
of being Chekists.
Claude Taylor is the third core member of the Russia sphere. He's a DC-area photographer who claims
to have worked for three presidential administrations; his role is to provide inside information
into the alleged legal cases against the president. He also routinely claims to have advance knowledge
what's happening, even down to the precise number of grand juries impaneled and indictments that
are on the way.
These anonymous intelligence community tip-offs lead him to tweet, with certainty, that Trump
is finished. His tweets routinely get thousands of retweets.
These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information
circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. A quick Twitter
search reveals hundreds of interactions between the three on the platform in recent months, many
of which reach huge audiences on Twitter (judging by the retweet and favorite counts). They're also
reliably boosted by a few allies with large followings - conservative NeverTrumper
Rick Wilson , the anonymous Twitter account
Counterchekist
, and financial analyst
Eric Garland
(best known as the "time for some game theory" tweetstormer.)
Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to
Quantcast ,
a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more
than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook,
according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that
Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000.
This stuff is real, and there's a huge appetite for it.
These theories are spreading because the Russia situation is murky - and Democrats are out of
power
To understand how Democrats started falling for this stuff so quickly, I turned to three scholars:
Dartmouth's Nyhan, the University of Exeter's Jason Reifler, and Temple's Kevin Arceneaux. The three
of them all work in a burgeoning subfield of political science, one that focuses on how people form
political beliefs - false ones, in particular. All of them were disturbed by what they're seeing
from the Russiasphere.
"I'm worried? Alarmed? Disheartened is the right word - disheartened by the degree to which the
left is willing to accept conspiracy theory claims or very weakly sourced claims about Russia's influence
in the White House," Reifler says.
The basic thing you need to understand, these scholars say, is that political misinformation in
America comes principally from partisanship. People's political identities are formed around membership
in one of two tribes, Democratic or Republican. This filters the way they see the world.
"Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs,
especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics,
that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false
information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite."
In
one study , Yale's Dan Kahan gave subjects a particularly tricky math problem - phrased in terms
of whether a skin cream worked. Then he gave a random subset the same problem, only phrased in terms
of whether a particular piece of gun control legislation worked.
The results were fascinating. For the people who got the skin cream problem, there was no correlation
between partisanship and likelihood of getting the right answer. But when people got the same question,
just about gun control, everything changed: Republicans were more likely to conclude that gun control
didn't work, and Democrats the other way around. People's political biases overrode their basic mathematical
reasoning skills.
"[Some] people are willing to second-guess their gut reactions," Arceneaux says. "There just aren't
that many people who are willing to do that."
In real-life situations, where the truth is invariably much murkier than in a laboratory math
problem, these biases are even more powerful. People want to believe that their side is good and
the other evil - and are frighteningly willing to believe even the basest allegations against their
political enemies. When your tribe is out of power, this effect makes you open to conspiracy theories.
You tend to assume your political enemies have malign motives, which means you assume they're doing
something evil behind the scenes.
The specific nature of the conspiracy theories tends to be shaped by the actors in question. So
because Obama was a black man with a non-Anglo name, and the Republican Party is made up mostly of
white people, the popular conspiracy theories in the last administration became things like birtherism
and Obama being a secret Muslim. This was helped on by a conservative mediasphere, your Rush Limbaughs
and Fox Newses and Breitbarts, that had little interest in factual accuracy - alongside one Donald
J. Trump.
There have been random smatterings of this kind of thing catering to Democrats throughout the
Trump administration, like the now-infamous Medium piece alleging that Trump's Muslim ban was a
"trial balloon for a coup." But most conspiracy thinking has come to center on Russia, and for
good reason: There's suggestive evidence of an actual conspiracy.
We know that Trump's team has a series of shady connections to the Kremlin. Some of Trump's allies
may have coordinated with Russian hackers to undermine the Clinton campaign. But we still don't know
the details of what actually happened, so there's a huge audience of Democratic partisans who want
someone to fill in the blanks for them.
"Conspiracy entrepreneurs are filling the void for this kind of content," Nyhan says. "If you're
among the hardcore, you can follow Louise Mensch, and the Palmer Report, and John Schindler and folks
like that - and get an ongoing stream of conspiracy discourse that is making some quite outlandish
claims."
This kind of thing is poisonous. For Republicans, it made their party more vulnerable to actual
penetration by hacks - the "Michele Bachmanns" and "Sean Hannitys," as Nyhan puts it. It allows unprincipled
liars and the outright deluded to shape policy, which both makes your ideas much worse and discredits
the good ones that remain. In the specific case of the Russia investigation, the spread of these
ideas would make the president's accusations of "fake news" far more credible.
Luckily for the Democratic Party, there isn't really a pre-built media ecosystem for amplifying
this like there was for Republicans. In the absence of left-wing Limbaughs and Breitbarts, media
outlets totally unconcerned with factual rigor, it's much harder for this stuff to become mainstream.
But hard doesn't mean impossible. The most worrying sign, according to the scholars I spoke to,
is that some mainstream figures and publications are starting to validate Russiasphere claims.
For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC
chair Donna
Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism":
A current DNC communications staffer - Adrienne Watson - favorably retweeted a Mensch claim that
the Russians had "kompromat," or blackmail, on Rep. Chaffetz:
Two former Obama staffers, Ned Price and Eric Schultz, favorably discussed a
Palmer Report
story aggregating Mensch's allegations about Chaffetz ("interesting, if single-source," Price
tweeted). Larry Tribe, an eminent and famous constitutional law professor at Harvard, shared the
same Palmer Report story on Twitter - and even defended his decision to do so in an email to
BuzzFeed 's Joseph Bernstein.
"Some people regard a number of its stories as unreliable," Tribe wrote of Palmer. Yet he defended
disseminating its work: "When I share any story on Twitter ... I do so because a particular story
seems to be potentially interesting, not with the implication that I've independently checked its
accuracy or that I vouch for everything it asserts."
What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators
being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary
people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest
in factual accuracy.
This is the key danger: that this sort of thing becomes routine, repeated over and over again
in left-leaning media outlets, to the point where accepting the Russiasphere's fact-free claims becomes
a core and important part of what Democrats believe.
"Normal people aren't reading extensively about what Louise Mensch claims someone told her about
Russia," Nyhan says. "The question now is whether Democrats and their allies in the media - and other
affiliated elites - will promote these conspiracy theories more aggressively."
That's how the GOP fell for conspiracy thinking during the Obama years. There's nothing about
Democratic psychology that prevents them from doing the same - which means the burden is on Democratic
elites to correct it.
Democratic partisans and liberal media outlets are the ones best positioned to push back against
this kind of stuff. Rank-and-file Democrats trust them; if they're saying this stuff is ridiculous,
then ordinary liberals will start to think the same thing. Even if they just ignore it, then the
Russiasphere will be denied the oxygen necessary for it to move off of Twitter and into the center
of the political conversation.
"Scrutiny from trusted media sources and criticism from allied elites can help discourage this
kind of behavior," Nyhan says. "It won't suppress it - there are always places it can go - but on
the margin, allies can help limit the spread of conspiracy theorizing inside their party."
So that's the key question going forward: Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed
up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the
people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer
to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives.
The Russia-screwed-the-Dems meme is obviously fantastical bullshit and it's absolutely disgraceful
that the neoliberal MSM are running this garbage 24/7 like it's the gospel truth.
Notable quotes:
"... "Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid warfare etc.," the Russian leader told his French hosts. "What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia." ..."
"... Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon, John McCain said that Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS . "You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues." ..."
"... It is glaringly obvious that the (worthless) Rats painted themselves into a small corner. Blaming the Russians is both desperate and hilarious. ..."
With McCarthyism 2.0 continues to run amok in the US, spread like a virulent plague by unnamed, unknown,
even fabricated sources , over in France one day after his first meeting with French president Emanuel
Macron, the man who supposedly colluded with and was Trump's pre-election puppet master (but had
to wait until after the election to set up back-channels with Jared Kushner) Vladimir Putin sat down
for an interview with
French newspaper Le Figaro in which the Russian president expressed the belief that Moscow and
Western capitals "all want security, peace, safety and cooperation."
"Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid
warfare etc.," the Russian leader told his French hosts. "What is the major security problem today?
Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle
East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia."
Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon,
John McCain said that
Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS . "You made these things up yourselves and now scare
yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no
prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues."
"Hacking" Clinton And the DNC
Even with the FBI special investigation on "Russian collusion" with the Trump campaign and administration
taking place in the background, Putin
once again dismissed allegations of Russian meddling in last year's U.S. presidential election
as "fiction" invented by Democrats to divert the blame for their defeat. Putin repeated his strong
denial of Russia's involvement in the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails that yielded
disclosures that proved embarrassing for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Instead, he countered that claims
of Russian interference were driven by the " desire of those who lost the U.S. elections to improve
their standing ."
"They want to explain to themselves and prove to others that they had nothing to do with it, their
policy was right, they have done everything well, but someone from the outside cheated them," he
continued. "It's not so. They simply lost, and they must acknowledge it. " That has proven easier
said than done, because half a year after the election,
Hillary Clinton still blames Wikileaks and James Comey for her loss . Ironically, what Putin
said next, namely that the "people who lost the vote hate to acknowledge that they indeed lost because
the person who won was closer to the people and had a better understanding of what people wanted,"
is precisely what
even Joe Biden has admitted several weeks ago , and once
again yesterday . Maybe Uncle Joe is a Russian secret agent too...
In reflecting on the ongoing scandal, which has seen constant, daily accusations of collusion
and interference if no evidence (yet), Putin conceded that the damage has already been done and Russia's
hopes for a new detente under Trump have been shattered by congressional and FBI investigations of
the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. In the interview, Putin also said the accusations of meddling
leveled at Russia have destabilized international affairs
Going back to the hotly debated topic of "influencing" the election, Putin once again made a dangerous
dose of sense when he argued that trying to influence the U.S. vote would make no sense for Moscow
as a U.S. president can't unilaterally shape policies. " Russia has never engaged in that, we don't
need it and it makes no sense to do it ," he said. " Presidents come and go, but policies don't change.
You know why? Because the power of bureaucracy is very strong ." Especially when the bureaucracy
in question is the so-called "deep state."
Asked who could have been behind the hacking of the Democrats' emails, The Russian leader added
that he agreed with Trump that it could have been anyone. "Maybe someone lying in his bed invented
something or maybe someone deliberately inserted a USB with a Russian citizen's signature or anything
else," Putin said. "Anything can be done in this virtual world." This echoed a remark by Trump during
a September presidential debate in which he said of the DNC hacks: "It could be Russia, but it could
be China, could also be lots of other people. It could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs
400 pounds."
Assad, Red-Lines and Chemical Weapons
Putin was asked about French President Emmanuel Macron's warning that any use of chemical weapons
in Syria was a "red line" that would be met by reprisals, to which the Russian president said he
agreed with that position. But he also reiterated Russia's view that Syrian President Bashar Assad's
forces weren't responsible for a fatal chemical attack in Syria in April. Putin said Russia had offered
the U.S. and its allies the chance to inspect the Syrian base for traces of the chemical agent. He
added that their refusal reflected a desire to justify military action against Assad. "There is no
proof of Assad using chemical weapons," Putin insisted in the interview. "We firmly believe that
that this is a provocation. President Assad did not use chemical weapons."
"Moreover, I believe that this issue should be addressed on a broader scale. President Macron
shares this view. No matter who uses chemical weapons against people and organizations, the international
community must formulate a common policy and find a solution that would make the use of such weapons
impossible for anyone," the Russian leader said.
On NATO's Military Buildup across Russian borders
Weighing on the outcome of the recent NATO summit, at which Russia was branded a threat to security,
Putin pointed to the ambiguous signals Moscow is receiving from the alliance. "What attracted my
attention is that the NATO leaders spoke at their summit about a desire to improve relations with
Russia. Then why are they increasing their military spending? Whom are they planning to fight against?"
Putin said, adding that Russia nevertheless "feels confident" in its own defenses. Washington's appeal
to other NATO members to ramp up their military spending and alleviate the financial burden the US
is forced to shoulder is "understandable" and "pragmatic," Putin said.
But the strategy employed by the alliance against Russia is "shortsighted," the Russian president
added, referring to the NATO's expanding missile defense infrastructure on Russia's doorstep and
calling it "an extremely dangerous development for international security." Putin lamented that an
idea of a comprehensive security system envisioned in the 1990s that would span Europe, Russia and
US has never become a reality, arguing that it would have spared Russia many challenges to its security
stemming from NATO. "Perhaps all this would not have happened. But it did, and we cannot rewind history,
it is not a movie."
junction -> Boris Badenov •May 30, 2017 10:03 PM
Paging Seth Rich. Oh, he can't say anything about the reason why the Democrats lost. Maybe
Hillary could try to contact him using witchcraft and the Satanist arts she follows. Then again,
her old reliable is her hit team of FBI agents, not her sacrifices to Moloch.
GooseShtepping Moron •May 30, 2017 10:01 PM
Putin packs more truth into one newspaper interview than the entire Western media publishes
in a year.
Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:01 PM
Who would they blame if Russia was suddenly gone?
rejected -> Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:05 PM
Iran.
GooseShtepping Moron -> Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:06 PM
Me and you, the basket of deplorables.
Billy the Poet -> rwmctrofholz •May 30, 2017 10:25 PM
I find this little cut and paste job to be effective when addressing this issue:
Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The
Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution
"DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not
involved in vote tallying."
"Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."
The Russia-screwed-the-Dems thing is obviously fantastical bullshit and it's absolutely disgraceful
that the mainstream media are running this garbage 24/7 like it's the gospel truth.
ogretown •May 30, 2017 10:43 PM
It is glaringly obvious that the (worthless) Rats painted themselves into a small corner. Blaming
the Russians is both desperate and hilarious. But who else could they blame? If instead they had
started a campaign that focused on the Muslims trying to ruin America and (correctly)
identified
Saudi Arabia as America's greatest enemy, imagine the votes they would have received from the
soft-right, independents, (relatively) sane liberals. If the (worthless) liberals opted for a
moratorium on squandering any more money on the pseudo-science of global warming and insisted
on a balanced panel to investigate the issue once and for all - even more votes.
Ditto with exotic pro-globalist trade deals...instead if the (worthless) Rats would have opted
for town hall discussions on how a vast international trade deal would have may be helped America,
they would have been viewed as the party of balance, consideration and the thoughtful.
But all of that means having smart and dedicated people as either part of the party or willing
to trust the party - none of which exist. Instead the party of bankrupt ideals and impoverished
morality finger point the Russians and try to blame it all on them.
"... I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be very interested in hearing what you think of my theory. ..."
"... intelligence sources ..."
"... So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social media "evidence"? ..."
"... four years earlier ..."
"... many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish. ..."
I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be
very interested in hearing what you think of my theory.
In my career in the Canadian government I was never formally in "intelligence" but I did participate
in writing many "intelligence assessments". Facebook, Twitter and other kinds of social media didn't
much exist at that time but, even if they had, I can't imagine that we would have ever used them
as sources of evidence: social media is, to put it mildly, too easy to fake. In writing intelligence
assessments, while we did use information gathered from intelligence sources (ie secret),
probably more came from what was rather pompously called OSInt (Open Source Intelligence; in other
words, stuff you don't need a security clearance to learn). What was, however, the most important
part of creating an assessment was the long process of discussion in the group. Much talk and many
rewrites produced a consensus opinion.
A typical intelligence assessment would start with a question – what's going on with the economy,
or political leadership or whatever of Country X – and would argue a conclusion based on facts. So:
question, argument, conclusion. And usually a prediction – after all the real point of intelligence
is to attempt to reduce surprises. The intelligence assessment then made its way up the chain to
the higher ups; they may have ignored or disagreed with the conclusions but, as far as I know, the
assessment, signed off by the group that had produced it, was not tampered with: I never heard of
words being put into our mouths. The intelligence community regards tampering with an intelligence
assessment to make it look as if the authors had said something different as a very serious sin.
All of this is preparation to say that I know what an intelligence assessment is supposed to look
like and that I have seen a lot of so-called intelligence assessments coming out of Washington that
don't look like the real thing.
Intelligence is quite difficult. I like the analogy of trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when you
don't know what the picture is supposed to be, you don't know how many pieces the puzzle has and
you're not sure that the pieces that you have are actually from the same puzzle. Let us say, for
example, that you intercept a phonecall in which the Leader of Country X is telling one of his flunkeys
to do something. Surely that's a gold standard? Well, not if the Leader knew you were listening (and
how would you know if he did?); nor if he's someone who changes his mind often. There are very few
certainties in the business and many many opportunities for getting it wrong.
So real raw intelligence data is difficult enough to evaluate; social media, on the other hand,
has so many credibility problems that it is worthless; worthless, that is, except as evidence of
itself (ie a bot campaign is evidence that somebody has taken the effort to do one). It is extremely
easy to fake: a Photoshopped picture can be posted and spread everywhere in hours; bots can create
the illusion of a conversation; phonecall recordings are easily stitched together: here are films
of Buks, here are phonecalls. (But, oddly enough, all the radars were down for maintenance that day).
It's so easy, in fact, that it's probably easier to create the fake than to prove that it is a fake.
There is no place in an intelligence assessment for "evidence" from something as unreliable as social
media.
An "intelligence assessment" that uses social media is suspect.
So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social
media "evidence"?
I first noticed social media used as evidence during the MH17 catastrophe when
Marie Harf, the then US State
Department spokesman, appealed to social media and "common sense" . She did so right after the
Russians had posted radar evidence (she hadn't "seen any of that" said she). At the time I assumed
that she was just incompetent. It was only later, when I read the "intelligence assessments" backing
up the so-called Russian influence on the US election, that I began to notice the pattern.
There are indications during the Obama Administration that the intelligence professionals were
becoming restive. Here are some examples that suggest that "intelligence assessments" were either
not being produced by the intelligence professionals or – see the last example – those that were
were then modified to please the Boss.
If one adds the reliance on social media to these indications, it seems a reasonable suspicion
that these so-called intelligence assessments are not real intelligence assessments produced by intelligence
professionals but are post facto justifications written up by people who know what the Boss wants
to hear.
We have already seen what appears to have been the first example of this with the "social media
and common sense" of MH17. And, from that day to this, not a shred of Kerry's "evidence" have we
seen. The long-awaited Dutch report was, as I said at the time, only a
modified hangout and very far from convincing .
This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the
DNI report of 6 January
2017 was the space – nearly half – devoted to a rant that had been published four years earlier
about the Russian TV channel RT. What that had to do with the Russian state influencing the
2016 election was obscure. But, revealingly, the report included:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election
chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably
to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment;
NSA has moderate confidence.
In other words, DHS told us to ignore its report and the one agency in the US intelligence structure
that would actually know about hacking and would have copies of everything – the NSA – wasn't very
confident. Both reports were soon torn apart: John McAfee: "I can promise you if it looks like the
Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians". (
See 10:30
). Jeffrey Carr: "
Fatally flawed ". Julian Assange:
not a state actor. Even
those
who loath Putin trashed them . In any case, as we now know, the
NSA
can mimic Russians or anyone else .
In April there was another suspiciously timed "CW attack" in Syria and, blithely ignoring that
the responders
didn't wear any protective gear in what was supposed to be a Sarin attack , the Western media
machine wound up its sirens. The
intelligence assessment that was released again referred to "credible open source reporting"
and even "pro-opposition social media reports" (! – are the authors so disgusted with what they have
to write that they leave gigantic hints like that in plain sight?). Then a page of so of how Moscow
trying to "confuse" the world community. And so on. This "intelligence assessment" was taken apart
by
Theodore Postol .
So, we have strong suggestions that the intelligence professionals are being sidelined or having
their conclusions altered; we have far too much reliance of social media; is there anything else
that we can see? Yes, there is: many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like
hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish.
Absurdly poor quality photos (maybe they were combine harvesters!).
Including a photo of damage to the port engine intake which contradicts the conclusion of the
MH-17 report.
DHS "does not provide any warranties".
The one agency that would know has only "moderate confidence".
Irrelevant rants about RT or assumed nefarious Russian intentions.
"Pro-opposition social media reports".
There are too many of these, in fact, not to notice – not that the Western media has noticed,
of course – they rather jump out at you once you look don't they? I don't recall inserting any little
such hints into any of the intelligence assessments that I was involved in.
In conclusion, it seems that a well-founded case can be presented that:
The normal process of producing intelligence assessments was not observed in the above cases;
"Intelligence assessments" were fabricated relying on social media (one can only assume because
there was nothing else);
They are throwing all kind of stuff at Trump to see if anything stick...
Notable quotes:
"... "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" ..."
"... Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow." ..."
"... People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have become a grave American national security threat." ..."
Russian Studies Professor Stephen Cohen said the publication of an unverified dossier of information regarding President-elect
Donald Trump and Russia is the "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" before he takes
office.
Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence
agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow."
Cohen said mainstream media figures have been calling Trump a 'puppet of the Kremlin' for some time, which he remarked started
when they decided to consider him as running with "Putin" rather than "Pence".
People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have
become a grave American national security threat."
Monday on MSNBC, while discussing his call on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for President Donald Trump to be impeached,
Rep. Al Green (D-TX) declared he did so because he "felt compelled" after reviewing evidence.
Green said,
"This is not something that I wanted to do, sir, it's something that I felt compelled to do after reviewing evidence. We live
in a country where we believe no police officer, no congressman, no senator and no president is above the law.
When the President decided that he would fire the FBI director who was investigating his campaign, which means that he was
investigating him, the president, when he decided to fire him and he acknowledged that he was doing it for this reason, when you
couple that with the fact that he said that the Russian thing was a made-up story and he said it is a witch-hunt, and then he
went on to tweet something that may be considered an intimidating statement with reference to a recording that he might have,
when you combine these things you have obstruction of justice.
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America recognizes obstruction of justice as an impeachable
offense."
"... If History is "a set of lies agreed upon," as Napoleon is supposed to have said, then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement. ..."
"... Trump Impeachment Talk Started Before He Was Even Nominated ..."
"... The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which VDARE.com has long argued is not a juridical proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system ..."
"... Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Broke A President And Divided America Forever ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Conservative Review ..."
"... Even after Manchester terror, Congress silent on US problems ..."
"... Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up "incident" and you never know how might be dying and for what. My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys were hard to find anywhere. ..."
"... President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World War II. The US Border Patrol didn't even exist until 1924. ..."
"... European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says 'the USA no longer supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe', with Merkel as emperor. Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do not see the need for high military expenses. ..."
"... My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow's article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. ..."
"... Scratch a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist .and a delusional imperialist at that. ..."
If History is "a set of lies agreed upon," as Napoleon is
supposed to have said,
then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement.
Thus the Ruling Class's
Trayvon Martin ,
Ferguson
and
Baltimore frenzies came and went, shamelessly unaffected by repeated
Narrative Collapses -- inexplicable, unless you were aware of Left's amoral imperative to incite
its black clients against the white American majority.
It's as simple as this: If the Evil Party gets control of the House of Representatives, Trump
was
always going to be impeached, regardless of what he did. (Conviction, which requires 67 Senate
votes, might be more difficult-although Democrats probably assume any Republican President could
be guilted into capitulation,
like Richard Nixon,
unlike Bill
Clinton ).
The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which VDARE.com has long argued is not a juridical
proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system
- and should be more broadly applied, by a patriot Congress, not just to Presidents but to
bureaucrats and
kritarchs
.
Buchanan's book is important and powerful-but somber: he's not joking at all with the last four
words of his title, although he doesn't dwell on it. It's a theme that has increasingly appeared
in his recent columns,
here and
here
and
here .
... ... ...
Buchanan vividly recreates the MSM-hyped atmosphere of crisis in Washington in the fall of 1969,
now completely forgotten but at the time an incipient elite coup even more serious than anything
yet seen under Trump:
Directly ahead was the largest antiwar protest in US history, October 15, when hundreds of
thousands were expected on the Washington Monument grounds, within sight of the White House. Major
media had become propagandists for the antiwar movement and were beating the drums for getting
out of Vietnam now. It seemed as though the fate of Lyndon Johnson, his presidency broken by the
Tet Offensive in 1968 and his humiliation by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire, could be ours as
well. David Broder of the Washington Post saw President Nixon's situation as did I. "It
is becoming more obvious with every passing day that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon
Johnson's authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969," wrote Broder on October 7.
"The likelihood is great that they will succeed again."
This was a particularly dangerous situation for Nixon because his Republican Party controlled
neither Senate nor House. In theory, the Democrats could have wrested policy from him at any point,
although in those days the prestige of the Presidency and respect for its prerogatives, sacralized
by years of Democratic dominance, was still a serious inhibition.
Contrary to his current
Demon King image, Nixon had responded after his election very much as Trump (notwithstanding
his more abrasive rhetoric) has done: appeasement.
... ... ...
Needless to say, appeasement did not work for either man. Partly this was because both provoked
a really peculiar blind personal hatred from the political class -- "for reasons I could not comprehend,"
says Buchanan in the case of Nixon, "given his centrist politics and even liberal policies "
... ... ...
Although it's now hard to imagine, the Main Stream Media had been as generally respected as the
office of the Presidency itself. Agnew and Buchanan burst that bubble for good.
.... ... ...
What this means in the current situation is clear: Trump must wheel and fight. And he must fight
on the issue that elected him, which poses an existential threat to the American nation (and, incidentally,
the GOP) that is even more serious than global Communism: mass out-of-control non-traditional immigration,
which out-of-control Leftist
judicial imperialists have now made unmistakably clear they intend to read into the constitution.
Trump must make clear (especially to cowardly Republican Congressman) that the survival of the Historic
American Nation is inextricable from his own.
Block funding for all refugees and visas from the Middle East for the remainder of the fiscal
year. Further enforce provisions of the INA that strip the courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate
rejections of visas. Pass a supplemental funding bill for the border wall and the construction
of a visa exit-entry tracking system, a goal Democrats officially support and that has been
passed by Congress numerous times since 1996.
In order to accomplish this or anything else, Congressional Republicans need to modify the
filibuster rules. Otherwise, they face electoral oblivion. It's time they actually confront the
issues of our time and harness the news cycle to pass common-sense national security bills. The
president must use the bully pulpit and his status as leader of the party to craft specific proposals
for the do-nothing Congress. Then, place the onus on them to act. He should give a televised address
from the Oval Office outlining his response to the growing threat of homegrown terrorism and demanding
action from Congress to deal with the courts.
Or we could just use up this once-in-generation electoral mandate on naming post offices and
continuing every major Obama policy.
He continued Johnson's suspension of the bombing of North Vietnam, a disgustingly irresponsible
ploy originally designed to shore up Democratic support in the 1968 presidential election campaign
at the expense of the Americans troops fighting and dying in great numbers in the South.
Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up "incident" and you never know how might be dying
and for what. My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys
were hard to find anywhere.
President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases
near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World
War II. The US Border Patrol didn't even exist until 1924.
This would cost little and could be paid for by existing Army operational and training funding,
and could be done in a matter of weeks. Congress would have no say and no permission is required.
Anyone who doubts this has been confused by corporate propaganda and can learn from reading this.
http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm
Dat Trump zichzelf als brexiteer ziet en het anti-Europese populisme aanmoedigt, vormt een
breuk met alles waar het naoorlogse Amerika voor staat.
The above is written by a Dutch journalist living in Berlin, Van Baar, a pro EU writer.
Translation:
That Trump sees himself as brexiteer and encourages anti European populism, is a rupture with
all that post WWII USA has as values.
Van Baar is quite right, Trump wants good relations with Russia, this does not fit in with
EU expansion plans, the Ukraine association, an association with a military paragraph.
European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says 'the USA no longer
supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe', with Merkel as emperor.
Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do
not see the need for high military expenses.
The last volume is almost finished. Each of those books is a superb piece of research and writing.
It's taken him around 35 years in total. The last volume (LBJ 1968-dead) ought to be coming out
soon. And his biggest problem? Almost everyone that knew all the players is gone. Especially those
who knew of LBJ's ongoing corruptions to his end.
My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow's article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was
an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. Other than that, it's on the money, Trump
really needs to come out swinging.
I have always despised the English Foreigner Peter Brimelow. Brimelow is an unrepentant Cold
Warrior. The Cold War which imposed the the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Maxine Waters) on us was
a high speed highway-Route 1964-to the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act=The Native Born
White American Extermination Act.
Immigration to the USA should be severely curtailed ..starting with Brits like Brimmie.
Scratch
a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist .and a delusional imperialist at that.
All evidence
points to the loss of the Vietnam War on the battlefield, and the complete collapse of the US
civilian military. All evidence points to the exceptional stupidity of a land war in Asia.
Evidence
is no problem for a Brit imperialist ..just ignore it and assert we were stabbed in the back by
an evil cabal in the US Knesset er Congress. As to Nixon and Buchanan ..they are relics from a
bygone age when white people were 90% of the population and Americans still worked for a living
i.e. growing, building, repairing something. Times change ..the white silent majority has disappeared
and so will the ragtag American empire.
Government
lies are common when seducing a population to support a war,
but the Russian
"hacking" claims are unusual
in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while
the
"fact" is just assumed,
When the U.S. public was told that Spain had blown up theMaine,or Vietnam had
returned fire, or Iraq had stockpiled weapons, or Libya was planning a massacre,
the claims were straightforward and disprovable.
Before people began referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, somebody had to
lie that it had happened, and there had to be an understanding of what had supposedly
happened.
No investigation into whether anything had happened could have taken
as its starting point the certainty that a Vietnamese attack or attacks had happened.
And no investigation into whether a Vietnamese attack had happened could have focused
its efforts on unrelated matters, such as whether anyone in Vietnam had ever done
business with any relatives or colleagues of Robert McNamara.
All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined
the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
U.S. corporate media
reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to
try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the
case.
There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of
exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually
referring, as if to established fact to the...
"Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election" (
Yahoo
).
"Russian attempts to disrupt the election" (
New
York Times
).
"Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election" (
ABC
).
"Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election" (
The
Intercept
).
"a multi-pronged investigation to uncover the full extent of Russia's
election-meddling" (
Time
).
"Russian interference in the US election" (
CNN
).
"Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking" we're told by the
New
York Times
, but what is "election hacking"?
Its definition seems to vary
widely. And what evidence is there of Russia having done it?
The "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" even exists as a
factual event in
Wikipedia
,
not as an allegation or a theory.
But the factual nature of it is not so much
asserted as brushed aside.
Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in
which he took the principled stand "I don't do evidence,"
testified that "the
fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the
fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American
people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something
that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to
act to prevent further instances of that."
He provided no evidence.
Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into
Russian interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more
about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016
election." (
March
for Truth
.)
Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is
steadily
rising
in the U.S. public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain
credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it
was a fact.
Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the
opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their
investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles
that lead off with reference to the "Russian influence on the election" is about White
House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian
businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on
Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the
photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi.
A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and
discussed
. There is no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic
National Committee staffer who was murdered last year) leaked Democratic emails than
there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both claims have passionate
believers.
Still, the claims about Russia are unique in their wide proliferation, broad
acceptance, and status as something to be
constantly referred to as though
already established, constantly augmented by other Russia-related stories that add
nothing to the central claim
. This phenomenon, in my view, is as dangerous as
any lies and fabrications coming out of the racist right.
This dude lost all credibility when he ended the article with "...
racist right". Talk about no evidence. We live in an upside down
world where protecting one's borders is considered racist, but
blaming whitey for all the ills of the world is perfectly fine.
Obama, and the Left, with their knee-jerk association of anyone who
disagrees with them, are the true racists. Finding collective
racism, sexism, etc so easily only proves your own mind-numbing
intollerance and rabid sickness of hate and discrimination. Hillary
Clinton proved it in spades at her Wellesly College Comencecunt
speach. The vitriol outdoes Trump on his worst night.
A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted
and discussed
. There is no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a
Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered last year) leaked
Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both
claims have passionate believers.
Well actually there is evidence that Seth
Richs was the DEM leak and not the Russians.
"A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively
noted and discussed
."
Who needs facts?
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. - Joseph Goebbels, Minister of
Propaganda, Nazi Germany 1933-45.
Notice how no one is apparently really investigating if Assad "gassed his own
people." This allegation is a big deal. Did the NYT assign five of its best
international reporters to investigating the facts? Is the UN investigating? Are
"intelligence" officers who dissent from the official meme being contacted?
That is, at some point, the truth doesn't matter. Nor does any "search for the
truth" seem to take place or get any publicity.
In fact the US blocked a Russian demand that an investigation be conducted by a
neutral 3rd party. Anyone that really follows this story knows it wasn't Assad.
The lies aren't even disguised any longer. The only people they are trying to
convinceare the people who only watch CNN or MSNBC but those dolts are
convinced that Hillary won the election but Russia changed the ballots so there
is really no trying to reason with idiots like that.
The big question is, does Trump know the Assad gassing meme is bullshit, or
is he really not that well-informed. I hope and pray he is playing 5-D chess
and is just pretending in order to buy himself enough time to drain the
swamp in the long run.
yeah the media in the USA is exposing itself to everyone even the most brain dead
lib has got to be questioning what the heck is going on with this Russian garbage,
the sheer vapid intensity is such it borders on supernatural
Russian Hacking = Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction = Syrian Chemical Weapons =
Muslins with Box Cutters = Gulf of Tonkin = a Miracle Bullet ... the list is
endless.
The deep state is terrified that
investigating Seth's Murder will open up a huge can of worms! The dishonest
liberal media will have lost credibility forever --
When I watch CNN and other people in the MSM talking about Russia I ask myself,
"what the fuck are these people smoking?" You couldn't make me think the Russians
were in control of Donald Trump even if you jacked me up with LSD and the
strongest blunts from Colorado!
Seriously, to watch news readers on CNN go into
fits of hysteria over Russia is mind numbing.
Can someone Fed Ex a blunt from Colorado? I don't even smoke anymore! FUCK.
The fuckers get fed lines, like movie actors. They are so fucking dumb, they
don't even know it, (that they are dumb.) A fine example of special ops,
brainwashing, probably educated in the finest elite training mills, with no
emphasis on critical thnking skills nor original thoughts whatsoever ..
The dems are breaking rule #7 of their manefesto, Saul Alansky's Rule Book for
radicals.
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.
We most definitely find the muh Russia charade tiresome. The dems are just too
unimaginative to make up anything new for us. Hollywood too has proved itself to
be out of ideas. Trump is the best amusement possible. You can't possibly guess
what he's going to do or say next. Dems and neo-cons, the globalist elites, are
totally predictable. They have never had such an adversary. It is a glorious show
to behold!
The stench of BS is so strong around Washington DC that I will not go there. Not
even with my HAZMAT respirators that can filter out the aroma of a skunk. Skunks
are no match for the stinking BS that pervades Washington DC.
I believe this is
why you never read stories about "skunk problems" in DC. The skunks have left DC.
What remains in DC is the real stinkers. The people who would have you believe
their utterly made up BS.
...we wouldn't be talking about this if Democrats and the media weren't lying every hour of every
day about a nonexistent scandal. This bogus investigation should end forthwith, no matter who is
heading it, because it is based on nothing but innuendo and partisanship. You conduct an
investigation not because you want something to be true but because you have some evidence
suggesting it may be. There is no such evidence here, and they've admitted it.
...
Mimi • 7 days ago
This Russian drum beat is getting tiresome. It is a terrible distraction to what more good and
beneficial things the President is trying to implement. The devil is definitely at work in all
the Democrat's hate-spewing words and deeds. Just look at their faces when they get interviewed
on TV. They don't care about all the infractions Hillary was involved in - all her life, even
dead bodies left in her wake. So they say.
KrrMudgeon • 13 days ago
"Dems' Trump-Russia Witch Hunt Deranged and Unjustified"...in other words, perfectly normal
for dems.
concernedcitizen • 13 days ago
I would like someone on the Left to explain exactly how Russia interfered with the election.
The DNC was hacked as was Podesta's emails and the information was given to wikileaks. Julian
Assange himself stated that the information was not provided by Russia nor was it provided by a
state agency. So, where is the EVIDENCE that Russia interfered with the election???
cam • 14 days ago
To believe that the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 Election and possible
involvement of the Trump campaign with Russia is a witch hunt or "fake news" means that the 17
Intelligence Agencies, the Investigative Committees in the House and the Senate and other
investigations are spending their valuable time investigating nothing is absurd. How can Trump
and a few other people be right by claiming this investigation is a hoax and the hundreds of
investigators be wrong!
It has been already proven by 17 Intelligence Agencies that Russia interfered in the Election
and now the investigation is into the next part - the investigation of the Trump campaign and
their possible involvement with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 Election.
It is insulting to me and other Americans that Trump considers this "fake news."
There are facts that support these investigations and to pretend that these facts do not exist
is lying!
"With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there
was never a special council appointed!" Trump tweeted, after an unusually quiet 24 hours online.
He added in a second tweet: "This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American
history!"
"... No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup. ..."
"... Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, ..."
"... So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters. ..."
"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble."
The witches in Macbeth.
President Trump's administration is now at a high boil as he faces intense heat from all sides.
The Republican Party has backed away from their embattled president. US intelligence agencies are
baying for his blood. The US media plays the role of the witches in 'Macbeth' as it plots against
Trump.
One increasingly hears whispers about impeachment or the wonderful 1964 film about a military
coup in Washington, 'Seven Days in May.'
As in Shakespeare's King Lear, Trump stands almost alone on a blasted heath, howling that he has
been betrayed. The world watches on in dismay and shock.
One thing is clear: the US presidency has become too powerful when far-fetched talk of possibly
Russian involvement in Trump's campaign could send world financial markets into a crash dive. And
when Trump's ill informed, off the cuff remarks can endanger the fragile global balance of power.
Trump has made this huge mess and must now live with it. Yes, he is being treated unfairly by
appointment of a special prosecutor when the titanic sleaze of the Clintons was never investigated.
But that's what happens when you are widely detested. No mercy for Trump, a man without any mercy
for others.
Trump is not a Manchurian candidate put into office by Moscow though his bungling aides and iffy
financial deals often made it appear so. His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn
was an awful blunder. Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy.
Who else paid off Flynn? Disgraceful.
But what about all the politicians and officials who took and take money from the Saudis and Gulf
emirates, or Sheldon Adelson, the ardent advocate of Greater Israel? What about political payoffs
to the flat-earth Republicans who now act as Israel's amen chorus in Washington?
The growing scandals that are engulfing Trump's presidency seem likely to delay if not defeat
the president's laudatory proposals to lower taxes, prune the bureaucracy, clean up intelligence,
end America's foreign wars, and impose some sort of peace in the Mideast.
By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media,
federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers,
cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals
for a living.
No wonder Trump stands almost alone, like Rome's Horatio at the Bridge. One increasingly hears
in Washington 'what Trump needs is a little war.'
That would quickly wrong-foot his critics and force the neocon media – Washington Post, Wall Street
Journal, New York Times, and CNN – to back him. We already saw this happen when Trump fired salvos
of cruise missiles at Syria. It would also provide welcome distraction from the investigations of
Trump that are beginning.
Trump has appeared to be pawing the ground in a desire to attack naughty North Korea or Syria,
and maybe even Yemen, Somalia or Sudan. A war against any of these small nations would allow the
president to don military gear and beat his chest – as did the dunce George W. Bush. Bomb the usual
Arabs!
' As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents. more and more closely, the
inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach
their hart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Shee-it! I thought Dubya accomplished this . Apparently the M'urkan public is being defiant
and really wants to flaunt it's ignorance. Well, howdee! we got us a real contest goin' on now.
Trump is obviously the proverbial monkey with a machine-gun. My inner survival instincts are starting
to kick in. Does anyone see this this presidency as leveling out and trying to conduct business
like you know as it has been in the last 200 years?
This is too insane. I honestly think that some kind of the fix is in. How? Don't know.
By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media,
federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists,
free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton
or abuse animals for a living.
No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is
no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.
Eric wrote: His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn was an awful blunder.
Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy.
Hunsdon said: The notorious Islamophobe, in pay of the Next Sultan? Too delicious.
Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest
about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates
got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside
of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, and the Electoral College was put into place
precisely to keep a big state or a couple of big states from dominating the election of a President.
Even in the 1780′s, many Americans didn't want NY to have the power to pick a President on their
own.
So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for
most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated
election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy
rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want
to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters.
Thus, its not that Trust is simply the most detested. He's not. At worst, the last election
said he's the second most detested person in the country. But, the "right" people all detest him.
So, a small minority of government insiders and the members of the media want to run him out of
town.
There's things he's done since he's been elected that I don't like. I don't like the way that
saying he was against regime change and more wars in the middle east has turned out to be a massive
lie. But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need
to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump
was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
If not, then CA and NY and the Deep State and the Media millionaires will run this country
and everyone will know that elections don't matter.
But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need
to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump
was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing
a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue
by issue basis.
If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation,
or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political
trouble.
"Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on
their electability.
If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.
By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media,
federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists,
free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton
or abuse animals for a living.
No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace
until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.
Few ruling classes had an opportunity to build an idyllical structure of society and governance
over the last four centuries as the two ruling US classes had.
Instead, they created numerous cliquish cliques and with political powers of each clique diminishing
from the two top classes down to the last class: prisoners, indigenes, white and black trash.
But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need
to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump
was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing
a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue
by issue basis.
If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation,
or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political
trouble.
"Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on
their electability.
If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.
"... John O. Brennan, the former director of the CIA, said publicly for the first time Tuesday that he was concerned about possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign ..."
"... Mr. Brennan became so concerned last summer about signs of Russian election meddling that he held urgent, classified briefings for eight senior members of Congress, speaking with some of them over secure phone lines while they were away on recess. In those conversations, he told lawmakers there was evidence that Russia was specifically working to elect Mr. Trump as president. ..."
"... Mr. Brennan was also one of a handful of officials who briefed both President Barack Obama and Mr. Trump in January on a broad intelligence community report revealing that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered an "influence campaign" targeting the presidential election. ..."
John O. Brennan, the former director of the CIA, said publicly for the first time Tuesday that he was concerned about possible
ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.
President Trump asked two top intelligence officials to deny the existence of any evidence of collusion between his campaign and
Russia, former officials said. Both of the intelligence officials are testifying before lawmakers on Tuesday.
Mr. Brennan, the former CIA director, said Tuesday that he became concerned last year that the Russian government was trying to
influence members of the Trump campaign to act - wittingly or unwittingly - on Moscow's behalf.
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials
and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,"
Mr. Brennan told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee.
It raised questions in my mind about whether Russia was able to gain the cooperation of those individuals," he said, adding that
he did not know whether the Russian efforts were successful. He added, "I don't know whether such collusion existed." It was the first time he publicly acknowledged that he was concerned about possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.
He said he left office in January with many unanswered questions about the Russian influence operation. Intelligence officials
have said that Russia tried to tip the election toward Mr. Trump.
Mr. Brennan became so concerned
last summer about signs of Russian election meddling that he held urgent, classified briefings for eight senior members of Congress,
speaking with some of them over secure phone lines while they were away on recess. In those conversations, he told lawmakers there
was evidence that Russia was specifically working to elect Mr. Trump as president.
Mr. Brennan was also one of a handful of officials who briefed both President Barack Obama and Mr. Trump in January on a broad
intelligence community report revealing
that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered an "influence campaign" targeting the presidential election.
"... It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive the public, turning political debate into burlesque. On all these fronts we have lost. We are trapped like rats in a cage. A narcissist and imbecile may be turning the electric shocks on and off, but the problem is the corporate state, and unless we dismantle that, we are doomed. ..."
"... "What's necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity," America's best-known political prisoner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville, Pa. " In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is 'Housewives of Atlanta.' We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that . there is no critical thinking in America during this period... ..."
"... Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of the deep state and intensify internal measures of repression. ..."
Forget the firing of James Comey. Forget the paralysis in Congress. Forget
the idiocy of a press that covers our descent into tyranny as if it were a sports contest between
corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats or a reality show starring our maniacal president and
the idiots that surround him. Forget the noise.
The crisis we face is not embodied in the public
images of the politicians that run our dysfunctional government. The crisis we face is the result
of a four-decade-long, slow-motion corporate coup that has rendered the citizen impotent, left us
without any authentic democratic institutions and allowed corporate and military power to become
omnipotent. This crisis has spawned a corrupt electoral system of legalized bribery and empowered
those public figures that master the arts of entertainment and artifice. And if we do not overthrow
the neoliberal ,
corporate forces that have destroyed our democracy we will continue to vomit up more monstrosities
as dangerous as Donald Trump.
Trump is the symptom, not the disease.
Our descent into despotism began with the
pardoning of Richard Nixon , all of whose impeachable crimes are now legal, and the extrajudicial
assault, including targeted assassinations and imprisonment, carried out on dissidents and radicals,
especially black radicals.
It began with the creation of corporate-funded foundations and organizations
that took control of the press, the courts, the universities, scientific research and the two major
political parties. It began with empowering militarized police to kill unarmed citizens and the spread
of our horrendous system of mass incarceration and the death penalty. It began with the stripping
away of our most basic constitutional rights-privacy, due process, habeas corpus, fair elections
and dissent.
It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a
close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive
the public, turning political debate into burlesque. On all these fronts we have lost. We are trapped
like rats in a cage. A narcissist and imbecile may be turning the electric shocks on and off, but
the problem is the corporate state, and unless we dismantle that, we are doomed.
"What's necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity," America's best-known
political prisoner,
Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville,
Pa. " In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is 'Housewives
of Atlanta.' We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that
. there is no critical thinking in America during this period...
... ... ...
Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may
be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of
the deep state and intensify
internal measures of repression.
"... the recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership. If half of what was recently reported is true, Clapper-Brennan "Intelligence assessment" looks more and more like Warren Commission report. ..."
"... ... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?" ..."
Pence is worse than Trump. And he is more likely to get two terms.
In the meantime, nothing gets fixed.
Anyone who wants single-payer, better jobs, etc. should focus on the 2018 elections and work for
people who can oust people like Nancy Pelosi in the primaries and Republicans in the general.
"Pence is worse than Trump. And he is more likely to get two terms.In the meantime, nothing gets
fixed."
True. Also the recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different
direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership. If half of what was recently reported is true, Clapper-Brennan "Intelligence assessment" looks
more and more like Warren Commission report.
... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after
having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating
that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"
Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but
then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.
Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up
destroy Trump media. Sheep that u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017
Most recently, he tweeted:
Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the
kitchen sink is dumped on my head?? https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017
.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his
testimony that two dozen or so "seasoned experts" were "handpicked" from
the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his
former office" While Clapper claimed these analysts were given
"complete independence" to reach their findings, he added that their
conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of
the three agencies and me."
Sounds a bit like the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission, with both
being presented with the results of what their investigation would uncover
prior to any investigation taking place.
"... TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with quotes from the article: ..."
TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside
Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image
shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with
quotes from the article:
1) Social media has become a danger to democracy.
The vast openness and anonymity of social media has cleared a dangerous new route for antidemocratic
forces. "Using these technologies, it is possible to undermine democratic government."
2) Democratic society must isolate itself from public opinion.
Russia may finally have gained the ability it long sought but never fully achieved in the Cold
War: to alter the course of events in the U.S. by manipulating public opinion.
3) Russia spies on you.
The Russians "target you and see what you like, what you click on, and see if you're sympathetic
or not sympathetic."
4) America is losing the cyberwar.
As Russia expands its cyberpropaganda efforts, the U.S. and its allies are only just beginning
to figure out how to fight back.
5) Russia has clever algorithms that America lacks.
American researchers have found they can use mathematical formulas to segment huge populations
into thousands of subgroups... Propagandists can then manually craft messages to influence
them, deploying covert provocateurs, either humans or automated computer programs known as
bots, in hopes of altering their behavior.
6) Russia has huge troll farms.
Putin dispatched his newly installed head of military intelligence, Igor Sergun, to begin repurposing
cyberweapons previously used for psychological operations in war zones for use in electioneering.
Russian intelligence agencies funded "troll farms," botnet spamming operations and fake news
outlets as part of an expanding focus on psychological operations in cyberspace.
7) You must trust mainstream media.
Eager to appear more powerful than they are, the Russians would consider it a success if you
questioned the truth of your news sources, knowing that Moscow might be lurking in your Facebook
or Twitter feed.
8) Russia invaded Ukraine in April 2014 .
Putin was aiming his new weapons at the U.S. Following Moscow's April 2014 invasion of Ukraine.
9) Hillary Clinton did not murder Seth Rich.
That story went viral in late August, then took on a life of its own after Clinton fainted
from pneumonia and dehydration at a Sept. 11 event in New York City. Elsewhere people invented
stories saying Pope Francis had endorsed Trump and Clinton had murdered a DNC staffer.
10) The evidence:
Russia plays in every social media space. The intelligence officials have found that Moscow's
agents bought ads on Facebook to target specific populations with propaganda. "They buy the
ads, where it says sponsored by–they do that just as much as anybody else does," says the senior
intelligence official. (A Facebook official says the company has no evidence of that occurring.)
The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, has
said he is looking into why, for example, four of the top five Google search results the day
the U.S. released a report on the 2016 operation were links to Russia's TV propaganda arm,
RT. (Google says it saw no meddling in this case.) Researchers at the University of
Southern California, meanwhile, found that nearly 20% of political tweets in 2016 between Sept.
16 and Oct. 21 were generated by bots of unknown origin; investigators are trying to figure
out how many were Russian.
"... "Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment. If a world war breaks out, that is it." ..."
"... Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root [causes of] despair of the western working class. ..."
A comment from MoA contains an insightful observation
"Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation
the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment.
If a world war breaks out, that is it."
This is tragic. Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the
Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality
and impoverishment.
If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get
into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave
rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root [causes of] despair of the western
working class.
They will blunder about in lost befuddlement until they vanish.
"... If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class ..."
This is tragic. Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia
Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and
impoverishment.
If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into
the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to
the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working
class .
They will blunder about in lost befuddlement until they vanish.
They can dig this dirt to years. Trump is now a hostage.
Notable quotes:
"... A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, confirmed that Manafort turned over documents, adding that Manafort remains interested in cooperating with the Senate investigation. ..."
"... NBC adds that it was too early to tell whether the documents from Manafort and Stone "suggested they had fully complied with the request." In a parallel process, as part of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation, federal grand juries have issued subpoenas for records relating to both Flynn and Manafort. ..."
While Michael Flynn may refusing to comply with the Senate Intel Committee's probe of Russian interference, two other former associates
of Donald Trump complied on Monday afternoon, and
according to NBC , Paul Manafort and Roger Stone have turned over documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee in its Russia
investigation, providing "all documents consistent with their specific request." As reported previously, the committee sent document
requests to Manafort and Stone, as well as Carter Page and Mike Flynn, seeking information related to dealings with Russia. So far
Page has not yet complied, while Flynn it was confirmed today, planned to plead the Fifth as a reason not to comply with a committee
subpoena, citing "escalating public frenzy" as part of the ongoing probe.
According to NBC, the committee's letter to Page asked him "to list any Russian official or business executive he met with between
June 16, 2015 and Jan. 20, 2017. It also asked him to provide information about Russia-related real estate transactions during that
period. And it seeks all his email or other communications during that period with Russians, or with the Trump campaign about Russia
or Russians."
While the precise contents is unknown, similar letters were sent to Manafort and Stone, who then sent the requested information
to investigators by last Friday's deadline.
"I gave them all documents that were consistent with their specific request," Stone said in an email to NBC News.
A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, confirmed that Manafort turned over documents, adding that Manafort remains interested
in cooperating with the Senate investigation.
NBC adds that it was too early to tell whether the documents from Manafort and Stone "suggested they had fully complied with
the request." In a parallel process, as part of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation, federal grand juries have issued subpoenas
for records relating to both Flynn and Manafort.
Meanwhile, Flynn's assertion of the Fifth Amendment would make it difficult for the Senate to enforce its subpoena, NBC News reported
citing Senate sources: "The Senate could go to court, or go ask the Justice Department to go to court to enforce it, but either actin
would require the Republicans who control the chamber to agree." Trump fired Flynn as his national security advisor in February after
misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak about U.S. sanctions on Russia.
This is hilarious. Is there supposed to be some connection between meeting with Russians and rigging an election?
I am thinking that if there is to be an investigation then Congress needs to cast a wider net to include all of the past three
administrations, All international banks and their legal representatives, all of Congress and everyone who has ever contributed
to the DNC or RNC.
If they are going to hunt for witches, why not make it open season on ALL witches.
My personal preference is to be on friendly terms with both Russia and China ... not to mentioned Iran, people of all religions
and the other countries that do not have BIS tied central banks. Why do we tolerate people telling us that we have to hate someone?
Guardian defends Hillary. Again. They also are afraid to open the comment section on this article.
Notable quotes:
"... A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - - special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between
the president's aides and - - Russia should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has
become the focus of conspiracy theorists . ..."
"... This week, the Russian embassy in the UK shared the conspiracy on Twitter, CNN reported , calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks
informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice". ..."
"... "He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former
FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn
what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics." ..."
"... The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case, the
Washington Post reported . ..."
Trump confidante and husband of ambassadorial nominee repeats WikiLeaks theory denounced as 'fake news' by family of murdered DNC
staffer Sunday 21 May 2017, 16.48 EDT Last modified on Monday 22 May 2017
A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - -
special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between the president's aides and - -
Russia
should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has become
the focus of
conspiracy theorists .
In an appearance on Fox and Friends less than two days after his wife was - -
proposed as ambassador to the Holy See , Newt Gingrich – former speaker of the House, 2012 presidential candidate and a Trump
confidante – publicly endorsed the conspiracy theory that Rich was "assassinated" after giving Democratic National Committee emails
to WikiLeaks.
Rich, 27, was shot dead in the early hours of 10 July 2016, as he walked home in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington.
In August, the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, - -
insinuated that Rich had been a source. Police initially explored whether Rich's murder might be connected to robberies in the
area, according
to a local news report , and officials in the capital have publicly debunked other claims.
"This is a robbery that ended tragically," Kevin Donahue, Washington's deputy mayor for public safety,
told NBC News this week. "That's bad enough for our city, and I think it is irresponsible to conflate this into something that
doesn't connect to anything that the detectives have found. No WikiLeaks connection."
On Sunday, the Washington DC police public affairs office did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.
In January, American intelligence agencies concluded with "
high confidence " in a public
report that Russian military intelligence was responsible for hacking the DNC and obtaining and relaying private messages to WikiLeaks,
which made a series of embarrassing public disclosures. The goal, the agencies concluded, was to undermine the candidacy of Hillary
Clinton and boost Trump, as well as hurt Americans' trust in their own democracy.
This week, the Russian embassy in the UK
shared the conspiracy on Twitter,
CNN reported
, calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers
to take notice".
The Rich family has repeatedly denied that there is any evidence behind the conspiracy theories and called on Fox News to retract
its coverage of their son's murder. Earlier this week, a spokesman for the family
said
in a statement that "anyone who continues to push this fake news story after it was so thoroughly debunked is proving to the
world they have a transparent political agenda or are a sociopath".
On Fox and Friends, Gingrich said: "We have this very strange story here of this young man who worked for the DNC who was apparently
assassinated at four in the morning having given WikiLeaks
something like 23,000 – I'm sorry, 53,000 – emails and 17,000 attachments.
"Nobody's investigating that, and what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out it wasn't the Russians,
it was this young guy who, I suspect, who was disgusted by the corruption of the Democratic National Committee.
"He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former
FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn
what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics."
Last week, the private investigator and Fox News commentator Rod Wheeler claimed that evidence existed that Rich had been in contact
with WikiLeaks. Questioned by CNN, however, he said: "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News" and added that
he did not have any evidence himself.
"Using the legacy of a murder victim in such an overtly political way is morally reprehensible," a Rich family spokesman told
CNN.
The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case,
the
Washington Post reported .
"... It is sad to see the liberals carried away on the wave of hysteria about the supposed Russian information warfare menace and possible influence over or even capture of the Trump presidency. It is also very dangerous to human welfare as it helps consolidate the power of the military-industrial complex, its war party associates, and the regressive deep state political forces that liberals claim to oppose. These political forces can fix a party line that quickly becomes an incontestible truth in the mainstream media (MSM). ..."
"... Thus, with the Soviet Union declared an "evil empire" it could be effectively tagged for crimes it did not commit (e.g., organizing the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981), and Saddam Hussein could be found allied with Al Qaeda and in possession of a large stock of weapons of mass destruction in 2003, lies that the MSM had no trouble swallowing. ..."
"... The steady process of Putin demonization escalated with the Ukraine crisis of 2014 and its sequel of Kiev warfare against East Ukraine, Russian support of the Eastern Ukraine resistance, and the Crimean referendum and absorption of Crimea by Russia. ..."
"... The Putin connection was given great impetus by the January 6, 2017 release of a report of the Office of Director of National Intelligence, on Background of Assessing Russian Activities and Intention in Recent U.S. Elections This short document spends about half of its space describing the Russian-sponsored RT-TV network which it seems to consider an illegitimate propaganda source as it often reports on and even criticizes U.S. policy and institutions. ..."
"... RT is allegedly part of Russia's "influence campaign," which consists of reporting on subjects that Russian leaders deem in Russia's interest. "We assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump's chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect. ..."
"... So the purpose and importance of the Assessment is clear. Thin and even ludicrous though its evidence of a Putin ordered propaganda campaign and Russian e-mail hacks transmitted through WikiLeaks may be, the release and pushing into prominence of this material behind the backs of the incoming administration was a major political action by agencies in principle subordinate to the political leadership. Of course it follows similar tactics by the departing Obama administration, one of whose last acts was expelling 35 Russian Embassy personnel in retaliation for the supposed Russian hacking (which Obama didn't even believe-in his final press conference he referred to "leaks" rather than "hacking"). But the political point of the Assessment seems to have been, at minimum, to tie the Trump administration's hands in its dealings with Russia. ..."
"... The NYT has run neck-and-neck with the WP in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and improper involvement with Trump. ..."
It is sad to see the liberals carried away on the wave of hysteria about
the supposed Russian information warfare menace and possible influence over
or even capture of the Trump presidency. It is also very dangerous to human
welfare as it helps consolidate the power of the military-industrial
complex, its war party associates, and the regressive deep state political
forces that liberals claim to oppose. These political forces can fix a party
line that quickly becomes an incontestible truth in the mainstream media
(MSM).
Thus, with the Soviet Union declared an "evil empire" it could be
effectively tagged for crimes it did not commit (e.g., organizing the
assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981), and Saddam Hussein
could be found allied with Al Qaeda and in possession of a large stock of
weapons of mass destruction in 2003, lies that the MSM had no trouble
swallowing.
Boris Yeltsin, accommodating to U.S. advice and pressure from 1991-2000,
seriously damaged his own people's well-being (Russian GDP fell 50 percent,
between 1991-1998), but, while he was also creating an oligarchic and
authoritarian economic and political structure he was lauded as a great
democrat in the MSM. Yeltsin's election victory in 1996, greatly assisted by
U.S. consultants, advice and money, and otherwise seriously corrupt, was "A
Victory for Russian Democracy" (NYT, ed,, July 4, 1996). His successor,
Vladimir Putin, gradually discarding the Yeltsin-era subservience, became a
steadily increasing menace. His reelection in 2012, although surely less
corrupt than Yeltsin's in 1996, was treated harshly in the media. No
"victory for Russian democracy" here, and the lead NYT article on May 5,
2012 featured "a slap in the face" from OSCE observers, claims of no real
competition, and "thousands of antigovernment protesters gathered in Moscow
square to chant 'Russia without Putin'" (Ellen Barry and Michael Schwartz,
"After Election, Putin Faces Challenges to Legitimacy"). There were no
"challenges to legitimacy" reported in the MSM in Yeltsin's corrupt victory
in 1996, although it was so corrupt that Yeltsin may actually have lost the
election but for a fraudulent count (on February 20, 2012, outgoing Russian
President Dmitri Medvedev shocked a small group of visitors by acknowledging
that Yeltsin might really have lost the 1996 election to Communist Gennadi
Zyuganov).
The steady process of Putin demonization escalated with the Ukraine
crisis of 2014 and its sequel of Kiev warfare against East Ukraine, Russian
support of the Eastern Ukraine resistance, and the Crimean referendum and
absorption of Crimea by Russia.
This was all declared to be
"aggression" by the U.S. and its allies and clients, sanctions were imposed
on Russia and the U.S.-NATO buildup on the Russian borders increased.
Tensions mounted further with the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines MH-17,
effectively but almost surely falsely, blamed on the "pro-Russian" rebels
and Russia itself (see Robert Parry, "Troubling Gaps in the New MH-17
Report," Consortiumnews.com, September 28, 2016). A further cause of
demonization and anti-Russian hostility resulted from escalated Russian
intervention in Syria in support of Bashar al-Saddad and against ISIS. The
U.S. and its NATO and local Middle East allies had been committing
aggression against Syria and in de facto alliance with ISIS and Al-Nusrah,
an offshoot of Al Qaeda. Russian intervention turned the tide, the U.S.
(etc) goal of removing Saddad was upset and the tacit U.S. ally, ISIS, was
also severely weakened. Certainly demonic behavior. The next and ongoing
phase of anti-Russian hysteria was based on Russia's purported entry into
the 2016 presidential campaign and on the growing role of the CIA and other
U.S. security services in hysteria-implementation, in close alliance with
the MSM. In the third presidential debate, on October 19, 2016, Clinton
declared that Trump would be a Putin "puppet" as president, and her campaign
placed great emphasis on this. This emphasis increased after the election,
with the help of the media and intelligence services as the Clinton camp
sought to explain the election loss and possibly get the election result
overturned in the courts or electoral college by blaming it on Russia.
The Putin connection was given great impetus by the January 6, 2017
release of a report of the Office of Director of National Intelligence, on
Background of Assessing Russian Activities and Intention in Recent U.S.
Elections This short document spends about half of its space describing the
Russian-sponsored RT-TV network which it seems to consider an illegitimate
propaganda source as it often reports on and even criticizes U.S. policy and
institutions.
RT is allegedly part of Russia's "influence campaign," which consists
of reporting on subjects that Russian leaders deem in Russia's interest. "We
assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump's
chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and
publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect.
"
There is no semblance of proof that there was a planned "campaign" rather
than the expression of opinion and associated news judgments. All the logic
and proofs of a Russian "influence campaign" could be applied with at least
equal force to U.S. media treatment of any Russian election.
As regards their effort to prove that the Russians intervened more
directly in the U.S. electoral process, the authors hedge by saying the
report doesn't provide the "full supporting evidence," but it provides no
supporting evidence-only assertions, assessments, assumptions and guesses.
It states blandly that "We assess that Putin ordered an influence campaign
in 2015" designed to defeat Clinton, and "to undermine public faith in the
U.S. democratic process," but it provides no evidence whatsoever for any
such order. It also provides no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, Clinton
and Podesta e-mails, or that it gave hacked information to WikiLeaks. Julian
Assange and Craig Murray have repeatedly claimed that these sources were
leaked by local insiders, not hacked by anybody. And veteran intelligence
agency experts William Binney and Ray McGovern also contend that the
WikiLeaks evidence was surely leaked, not hacked ("The Dubious Case on
Russian 'Hacking'," Consortiumnews.com, January 6, 2017). It is of interest
that among the intelligence agencies who signed on to the DNI document, the
one with the greatest reservations-only "moderate confidence"--was the NSA,
which is the agency that would most clearly be in possession of proof of
Russian hacking and transmission to Wiki-Leaks as well as any "orders" from
Putin.
In the immediate aftermath of the election, Clinton blamed FBI head James
Comey's reopening and then quickly closing the case on her earlier
unauthorized use of a private email server, as the key factor in her
election loss ("Clinton Blames FBI Director for Her Defeat," NYT, November
13, 2016). This suggests that even she and her campaigners didn't consider
the alleged Russian hacking and WikiLeaks revelations as that important. But
the Russian-Putin connection lived on and even escalated further.
The MSM have given no attention to the politicization of the intelligence
agencies in these cases. The more durable and important case involving
Russia has been damaging to Trump and any peace prospects that his
presidency might have brought. But the FBI-Clinton episode was damaging to
Clinton and benefited Trump's electoral chances. One theory is that the FBI
leadership favored Trump while the CIA favored Clinton. Another theory is
that the intelligence agencies trusted neither candidate, so fatally injured
Clinton and then turned their guns on Trump, with the FBI signing on to the
joint agencies "Assessment" after having finished with Clinton. (Robert
Parry, "A Spy Coup in America?" Consortiumnews.com, December 18, 2016.)
But the CIA's hostility to Trump has been conspicuous, and their brazen
intervention in the election process broke new ground in secret service
politicization. Former CIA head Michael Morell had an August 5, 2016 op-ed
in the New York Times entitled "I Ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary
Clinton"; and former CIA boss Michael Hayden had an op-ed in the Washington
Post, just days before the election, entitled "Former CIA Chief: Trump is
Russia's Useful Fool" (November 3, 2016). These attacks were unrelievedly
insulting to Trump and laudatory to Clinton, though interestingly there is
no mention of the merits or demerits of the candidates domestic policy
programs. It is explicit that Clinton's more pugnacious approach to Syria
and Russia is much preferred to Trump's leanings toward negotiation and
cooperation with Russia.
So the purpose and importance of the Assessment is clear. Thin and
even ludicrous though its evidence of a Putin ordered propaganda campaign
and Russian e-mail hacks transmitted through WikiLeaks may be, the release
and pushing into prominence of this material behind the backs of the
incoming administration was a major political action by agencies in
principle subordinate to the political leadership. Of course it follows
similar tactics by the departing Obama administration, one of whose last
acts was expelling 35 Russian Embassy personnel in retaliation for the
supposed Russian hacking (which Obama didn't even believe-in his final press
conference he referred to "leaks" rather than "hacking"). But the political
point of the Assessment seems to have been, at minimum, to tie the Trump
administration's hands in its dealings with Russia.
This was also true of the further scandal with Michael Flynn's call from
the Russian Ambassador, possibly including exchanges about future policy
actions. This was quickly grasped by the outgoing Obama officials and
security personnel, with the FBI interrogating Flynn and with widespread
expressions of horror at Flynn's action, allegedly possibly setting him up
for blackmail. But such pre-inauguration meetings with Russian diplomats
have been a "common practice" according to Jack Matlock, the U.S. ambassador
to Russia under Reagan and Bush, and Matlock had personally arranged such a
meeting for Carter. Obama's own Russia adviser, Michael McFaul, admitted to
visiting Moscow for talks with officials in 2008 even before the election.
Daniel Lazare makes a good case that the illegality and blackmail threat are
implausible, that the FBI's interrogation of Flynn reeks of entrapment, and
he asks what is wrong with trying to reduce tensions with Russia? "Yet
anti-Trump liberals are trying to convince the public that it's all 'worse
than Watergate'." ("Democrats, Liberals, Catch McCarthyistic Fever,"
Consortiumnews.com, February 17, 2017.)
One of the few positive features of the Trump campaign had been a refusal
to demonize Putin and an indication of a desire to normalize relations with
Russia. Given the growth and power of the military-industrial complex, and
the security agencies, there were powerful vested interests in continued
hostile relations with Russia, manifested in the Assessment and other
security agency overt and covert leaks, and the cooperation of the media (as
in their publication of the CIA election letters).
Paralleling the Assessment's stress on the Russian "influence campaign,"
the MSM became very preoccupied with "fake news," often implicitly or
explicitly tied to Russia. An awkward fact in this context is that the
disclosures of Clinton, DNC, and Podesta emails allegedly hacked by Russia
described facts about electoral manipulations on behalf of the Clinton
campaign that might well have affected election results. The focus on the
non-existent Russian hacking intrusion helped divert attention from this
real electoral abuse. Official and MSM fake news helped bury real news.
The most remarkable media episode in this anti-influence campaign, that
was and still is a real anti-Russian disinformation campaign, was the
Washington Post's classic by Craig Timberg, "Russian propaganda effort
helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say" (November 24, 2016).
The article features a report by an anonymous author or authors, PropOrNot,
a "group that insists on public anonymity" according to the WP editors. The
group claims to have found 200 websites that wittingly or unwittingly, were
"routine peddlers of Russian propaganda." While smearing these websites, the
"experts" refused to identify themselves allegedly out of fear of being
"targeted by legions of skilled hackers."
As Matt Taibbi says,"You want to blacklist hundreds of people, but you
won't put your name to your claims? Take a hike." ("The 'Washington Post's
'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful and Disgusting," RollingStone.com, November
28, 2016.) But the WP welcomed and featured this smear job, which might well
be a product of Pentagon or CIA information warfare (and they are well
funded and heavily into the propaganda business).
The NYT has run neck-and-neck with the WP in stirring up fears of the
Russian information war and improper involvement with Trump.
They
easily confuse fake news with any criticism of established institutions, as
in Mark Scott and Melissa Eddy, "Europe Combats a New Foe of Political
Stability: Fake News," February 20, 2017; analyzed, in Robert Parry, "NYT's
Fake News about Fake News," Consortium news.com, February 22, 2017. But what
is more extraordinary is the uniformity with which the paper's regular
columnists accept the CIA's Assessment of the Russian hacking-transmission
to WikiLeaks, the dreadfulness of the Flynn case, the possibility or
likelihood that Trump is a Putin puppet, and the urgent need of a
congressional and "non-partisan" investigation of these claims. This
swallowing of a new party line has extended widely in the liberal media
(e.g., Robert Reich, Ryan Lizza, Joan Walsh, Rachel Maddow, the AlterNet
website, etc.).
On December 23, 2016 President Obama signed the Portman-Murphy
"Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act," which will supposedly allow
this country to more effectively combat foreign (Russian, Chinese)
propaganda and disinformation. It will encourage more government
counter-propaganda efforts and provide funding to non-government entities
that will help counter propaganda.
It is clearly a follow-on to the claims of Russian hacking and
propaganda, and may even be said to be a follow-on to the listing of 200
knowing or "useful tools" of Moscow featured in the Washington Post. Perhaps
PropOrNot will qualify for a subsidy and be able to enlarge its list of 200.
Liberals have been quiet on this new threat to freedom of speech, which was
signed into law on a Friday, perhaps paralyzed by their fears of
Russian-based fake news and propaganda. But they may wake up, even if
belatedly, when Trump or one of his successors puts it to work on their own
notions of fake news and propaganda.
Z
Edward S. Herman is an author, economist, and media analyst with a
specialty in corporate and regulatory issues as well as political economy.
"... Global neo-liberal establishment. Say it three times and click your heels. ..."
"... You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. ..."
Neoliberalism, another word for 'money rules the world'.
Draghi visited the Dutch parliament, Baudet, FVD, asked him if, since
Draghi had warned Italy that leaving the euro would cost them about 100
billion euro, Ittalians debts, the Netherland would get about 100 billion
if we left the euro.
100 billion is what we lent, say, Draghi.
His 'answer' was that the euro is irreversible.
He apparently does not know that within tn years after the dissolution of
the Habsburg empire all the new states ahd created their own money.
Since all euo zone members still have their central banks, it is quite
easy to leave the euro.
No one ever went bankrupt because he overestimated the stupidity of the
US people, especially the liberal/neoliberal half. Yet, it escapes both
the author and me why this dumber liberal half of Americans has the
propensity to call itself "intellectual". Maybe intellectual is a synonym
for stupid in the New US Speak, you know like War is Peace, Freedom is
Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Idiocracy it truly is.
As to the intellectuals' media it is the usual assortment of The Jew
Pork Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Independent from the Truth, The
Guardian of the Lies and so on.
Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism
Paul
Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a
columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder
of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street
Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified
before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic
policy.
@Agent76
Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism
Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a
columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder
of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street
Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified
before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic
policy.
If Hopkins continues to write in this vein, he may eventually produce a
truly first rate play. Which will mark him forever as a tool of Russia
and the mastermind of all
EVIL
, Putin.
@joe webb
one of the characteristic forms of comments here is this: one or two
sentences and nothing else. No sustained thought process which can relate
X to Y and Z, as in multi-factor analysis, historical parallels,
psychology, etc.
Failure of intelligence.
There is nothing like intelligence. (or lack thereof)
@Agent76
Mar 18, 2014 US support of violent neo-Nazis in Ukraine: Video
Compilation
Shocking and insightful videos detailing the neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic,
ultra-nationalist movement in Ukraine. The videos examine the ongoing US
support of these groups, including the Svoboda party and Right Sector.
@Kiza
No one ever went bankrupt because he overestimated the stupidity of the
US people, especially the liberal/neoliberal half. Yet, it escapes both
the author and me why this dumber liberal half of Americans has the
propensity to call itself "intellectual". Maybe intellectual is a synonym
for stupid in the New US Speak, you know like War is Peace, Freedom is
Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Idiocracy it truly is.
As to the intellectuals' media it is the usual assortment of The Jew
Pork Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Independent from the Truth, The
Guardian of the Lies and so on.
This 'impeachment' thing should really be called JEW COUP.
Jews run the media and shape the Narrative.
So, the Liberation of Aleppo was called the 'Fall of Aleppo'.
So, Alqaeda elements in Syria were called 'moderate rebels'. So, we were fed lies about Libya to have it destroyed.
And so much fuss is made about Evil Putin but we hear nothing of what
Jewish oligarchs did to Russian economy in the 90s.
Jews are so powerful they can even convince American Morons that
marriage = two men buggering one another.
This is not about impeachment. Jews hate Trump because he wants better
ties with Russia, a nation that freed itself from total Jewish Control.
"Intelligence is just a tool to be used toward a goal, and goals are not
always chosen intelligently" - Larry Niven from "Protector"
Also,
You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of
seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the
place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for
people's hatred and fear.
Not at all.
After the awkward "russian reset" attempt by the Clinton-Obama axis of
diplomacy, which somehow failed, the intolerance to all things Russian
started during Snowden's "Summer of Surveillance" redpilling (i.e. 2013).
Systemic shock mode was entered when the Ukraine liberation encountered
unsuspected and sudden (and definitely "reactive") pushback in 2014 and
Russia started supporting Syria against the ISIS "our temporary friends"
clownshow in 2015.
(The other "primary target for people's hatred and fear", the always good
to amuse the hoi polloi cardboard cutout Ghaddafi had sadly shuffled of
this mortal coil a bit earlier. So sad! And the bullshit of "Iran's gonna
have da bomb next week, this time for sure" stuff going on since the 90s
didn't get much traction anymore.)
@ThereisaGod
It is time to start saying it out loud. The west is occupied territory
and our occupiers are, unfortunately, largely Jews whose first loyally is
tribal and NOT to the country in which they reside.
@Anon
single factor analysis. It is not just the jews. The Dems are a
coalition of blacks, jews, asians, indians, mexers, and some working
class whites who have not left yet for the GOP and Trump, AND White
Liberals, mostly professionals, who have sold out to globalism and its
One World of Consumers.
Yes, there is a so-called 'Liberal
Coalition' of various groups. But are they equal in power and influence?
In truth, Jews dominate.
For example, Asians have no agency of their own. They just follow the
narratives of other. Mexers are happy to be Guillermos and have no
interest apart from tacos. Their only politics is calling whites
'gringos', blacks 'negritos', and Asians 'chinos'. Blacks are loud and
vocal, but it's all about blacks. Blacks have no knowledge and interest
in the larger world. They are very tribal and provincial.
If not for Jewish Power, NO ONE would be interested in Russia. That is
a Jewish thing.
If blacks ran the Democratic Party, they would fixate on some OTHER ISSUE
to get at Trump.
Blacks jumped on the Russia bandwagon ONLY BECAUSE Jews set the template
and the meme. Since that is the Anti-Trump Meme as chosen by Jews, all
anti-Trumpers are parroting the same crap. But Russia became the Key
Issue because Jews are obsessed with Russia and what it implies. Jews set
the Narrative and others play do the Parrotive.
The Powerful get to decide the Narrative. The less powerful just tag
along like dogs and repeat the mantra set by the Powerful. They are
parrots with the Parrotive.
Also, only Jews have the direct power in media, deep state, and
finance(owning all politicians through AIPAC) to pull off what is
happening.
Just think. Suppose Asians don't want to go after Trump but Jews want
to. What would happen? Jews would decide, and Asians would have choice
but to go along.
Now, suppose Asians want to go after Trump, but Jews don't want to. Could
Asians push for impeachment without Jewish support? NO way.
Or suppose blacks want to go after Trump, but Jews say NO and won't
give anti-Trump support in media and Deep State. Would it happen? No.
Or suppose blacks want to work with Trump but Jews want to go after him.
Would it happen? Yes, because Jews get to pull all the strings.
So, while it is true that there is a Democratic Coalition, Jews have
1000x the power of other groups. I mean consider how most Jews and most
Arabs are in the Democratic Camp, but Zionists have far more power than
Palestinians/Muslims do.
This is a
Jew Coup
because Jews are the single-most powerful
element in Democratic Party, GOP, Congress(by buying up politicians),
FED, Wall Street, and etc.
Sep 9, 2016 US-funded Ukrainian army is terrorizing civilians. Russell
Bentley is a former US marine, that now fights for the Donbass, Eastern
Ukraine, against the US-funded Ukrainian army.
@Ace
We are awash in lies: race, racism, white privilege, constitutional
America, living Constitution, propositional nation, nation of immigrants,
American exceptionalism, responsibility to protect (humanitarian war),
Assad the Dictator, Islamism/moderate Muslims, our ally Israel, our ally
Saudi Arabia, evilevil Putin, the one and only holocaust, right-wing
National Socialism, N"A"TO, evil Serbia, Islam's contribution, the
Crusades, patriarchy, gender, homosexual marriage, women's suffrage,
diversity, multiculturalism, open borders, welfare state, socialized
medicine, objective MSM, Saint Abraham, Saint Ze-dong, Obama the natural
born citizen, the administrative state, frustrated ghetto rocket
scientists, indispensable nation, Gaddafi the Tyrant, Axis of Evil,
Judeo-Christianity, the Three Abrahamic religions, globalism, free trade,
immigrant monetary contribution doing jobs Americanswon't do, climate
change, agw, alternative energy, reasonable gun control, nation building,
the glass ceiling, pay inequality, vote suppression, the evil of
segregation, black nationalism, private prison oppression, disparity in
sentencing, Roe v. Wade, the innocence of Mumia Jaba Jabu, reparations,
BLM, debt ceiling, government shutdowns, unemployment, inflation, the
"Federal" Reserve, dual citizenship, the EU, refugees, metissage
commercials, homosexuality in commercials, white burglars in commercials,
POC in commercials. Mexico our friend, GOP principles, bipartisanship,
McCarthy the Indecent, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Israel's mistake re the
Liberty, the _________ Commission, St. Martin the Patriot, Robert Mueller
the FBI Muslim realist, the neocon patriot, Saint Franklin, the New Deal,
the "US" Chamber of Commerce Keynesianism, quantitative easing, and St.
Hillary the Incorrupt.
Oh yes. And our desperate need for Nigerians, Syrians, and Somalis. And
Hindu software engineers.
I'm out of ideas now at which point one must say, "And I could go on and
on."
@El Dato
This must be the next basic text for an updated Billy Joel's "We didn't
Start the Fire" (clip needs to be updated to have Snowden on 24/7 TV and
no-one cares)
@Agent76
Sorry joe webb I do not partake in any flavor of Kool-aid! DECEMBER 25,
2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949
In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W.
Bush through his secretary of state James Baker promised Soviet premier
Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation on German
reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand "one inch"
eastwards towards Russia.
@huswa
That's a really interesting view about operating on principle vs. on
in-group relations. Can you please reply with some relevant articles if
you have them?
I've traveled quite a lot and have seen principled people in all parts of
the world. Sometimes they are really drowned out by the masses. I do not
think that altruism is specific to whites. The "White Man's Burden"
wasn't altruism. Colonizers weren't in it to lift up the world. They
wanted money and other resources. As an example they crippled local
economies t Of course, they did a lot of good
"... The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. ..."
"... The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal. ..."
"... the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adélie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. ..."
"... Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything ..."
So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially
Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that
those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has
the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling
classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner.
The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred
years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward
right on schedule.
The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain
surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece
is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal.
Or OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable"
papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning
economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist
agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant
number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow
and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adélie penguin chicks
in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough are convinced (these deluded persons are)
that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with,
or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control
the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion.
Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the
White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions
like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal
healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything.
"... America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making-and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted in the American polity that it's difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis. ..."
"... Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency, and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job. But that isn't the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis proportions of its own. ..."
"... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
"... "Elites" are not necessarily truly unique, "brights" are not necessarily truly bright, "gnostics" do not necessarily have true knowledge, "puritans" are not necessarily truly pure, etc. What is being labeled is not what they truly are, but what they would have us believe they are; the reality is often very much the contrary. ..."
"... What characterizes "elites" is not really position or power, very much less intelligence or nobility of heart. The defining characteristic of an "elite" is arrogance. ..."
America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of
the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making-and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted
in the American polity that it's difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the
future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis.
What is it? Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency,
and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his
White House job. But that isn't the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis
proportions of its own.
When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that
the elites are the problem. We're talking here about the elites of both parties. Think of those who gave the country Hillary Clinton
as the Democratic presidential nominee-a woman who sought to avoid accountability as secretary of state by employing a private email
server, contrary to propriety and good sense; who attached herself to a vast nonprofit "good works" institution that actually was
a corrupt political machine designed to get the Clintons back into the White House while making them rich; who ran for president,
and almost won, without addressing the fundamental problems of the nation and while denigrating large numbers of frustrated and beleaguered
Americans as "deplorables." The unseemliness in all this was out in plain sight for everyone to see, and yet Democratic elites blithely
went about the task of awarding her the nomination, even to the point of employing underhanded techniques to thwart an upstart challenger
who was connecting more effectively with Democratic voters.
At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some even attacked him vociferously. But,
unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended
up with the nomination. The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar, ill-mannered,
tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become so bad in their view that they turned to the man
who most clamorously rebelled against it.
The crisis of the elites could be seen everywhere. Take immigration policy. Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate
on the merits of the issue-whether mass immigration is good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns
and threatens to erode America's underlying culture. Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted
and even fostered by the nation's elites, has driven a powerful wedge through America. Couldn't those elites see that this would
happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that their petty political prejudices were more
important than the civic health of their nation?
So now we have some 11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon
which our nation was founded, with no reasonable solution-and generating an abundance of political tension. Beyond that, we have
fostered an immigration policy that now has foreign-born people in America approaching 14 percent-a proportion unprecedented in American
history except for the 1920s, the last time a backlash against mass immigration resulted in curtailment legislation.
And yet the elites never considered the importance to the country's civic health of questions related to assimilation-what's an
appropriate inflow for smooth absorption. Some even equated those who raised such questions to racists and xenophobes. Meanwhile,
we have "sanctuary cities" throughout Blue State America that are refusing to cooperate with federal officials seeking to enforce
the immigration laws-the closest we have come as a nation to "nullification" since the actual nullification crisis of the 1830s,
when South Carolina declared its right to ignore federal legislation it didn't like. (Andrew Jackson scotched the movement by threatening
to hang from the nearest tree anyone involved in violence stemming from the crisis.)
Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively after the Great Recession to benefit
themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates
over many years, accompanied by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and corporate
America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings accounts. The result, says economic consultant
David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer , was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial
interests in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial transactions, divorced
from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial
zest, generate new enterprises, and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more
and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.
And, though these policies were designed to boost economic growth, they have failed to do so, as America suffered through one
of the longest periods of mediocre growth in its history.
All this contributed significantly to the hollowing out of the American working class-once the central foundation of the country's
economic muscle and political stability. Now these are the forgotten Americans, deplorable to Hillary Clinton and her elite followers,
left without jobs and increasingly bereft of purpose and hope.
And if they complain they find themselves confronting the forces of political correctness, bent on shutting them up and marginalizing
them in the political arena. For all the conservative and mainstream complaints against political correctness over the years, it
was never clear just how much civic frustration and anger it was generating across the country until Donald Trump unfurled his attack
on the phenomenon in his campaign. Again, it was ordinary Americans against the elites.
The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country
bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen,
Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the
risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.
When Trump, marshaling this anti-elite resentment into a powerful political wave, won the presidential election last November,
it was noted that he would be a minority president in the popular vote. But then so was Nixon; so was Clinton; so was Wilson; indeed,
so was Lincoln. The Trump victory constituted a political revolution.
Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they
consider normalcy-the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so
much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing
of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." That's why the demonization of Russia has
reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and
threat.
Ross Douthat, the conservative New York Times columnist, even suggests the elites of Washington should get rid of Trump
through the use of the Constitution's 25th Amendment, which allows for the removal of the president if a majority of the cabinet
informs the Congress that he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and if a two-thirds vote of Congress confirms
that judgment in the face of a presidential challenge. This was written of course for such circumstances of presidential incapacity
as ill health or injury, but Douthat's commitment to the counterrevolution is such that he would advocate its use for mere presidential
incompetence.
Consider the story of Trump's revelation of classified information to Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the United States.
No one disputes the president's right to declassify governmental information at will, but was it wise in this instance? Certainly,
it was reckless if he exposed sources and methods of intelligence gathering. But did he?
The president and his top foreign policy advisers, who were present during the conversation, say he didn't. The media and Trump's
political adversaries insist that he did, at least implicitly. We don't know. But we do know that when this story reached the pages
of The Washington Post , as a result of leaks from people around Trump who want to see him crushed, it led to a feeding frenzy
that probably harmed American interests far more than whatever Trump may have said to those Russians. Instead of Trump's indiscretion
being confined to a single conversation with foreign officials, it now is broadcast throughout the world. Instead of, at worst, a
hint of where the intelligence came from, everyone now knows it came from the Israelis. Instead of being able to at least pursue
a more cooperative relationship with Russia on matters of mutual interest, Trump is once again forced back on his heels on Russian
policy by government officials and their media allies-who, unlike Trump, were never elected to anything.
Thus is the Trump crisis now superimposed upon the much broader and deeper crisis of the elites, which spawned the Trump crisis
in the first place. Yes, Trump is a disaster as president. He lacks nearly all the qualities and attributes a president should have,
and three and a half more years of him raises the specter of more and more unnecessary tumult and deepening civic rancor. It could
even prove to be untenable governmentally. But trying to get rid of him before his term expires, absent a clear constitutional justification
and a clear assent from the collective electorate, will simply deepen the crisis, driving the wedge further into the raw American
heartland and generating growing feelings that the American system has lost its legitimacy.
There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove
worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity,
merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative
. His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century
, is due out from Simon & Schuster in September.
If you want to know why things are as bad as they are and why Americans are so ignorant and dumbed down, get the video "Agenda"
by Curtis Bower. It explains it all.
I agree with your diagnosis, even if the term "elite" is nebulous (aren't you, Mr. Merry, by virtue of your position as a D.C.-based
journalist, an "elite"?). Anyway, Gilens and Page found as much.
Yeah this whole "elite" thing is kind of frustrating to hash out in good faith sometimes of course we want "elite" people in charge,
in the sense that they're not illiterate imbeciles. The funny thing is how much "democracy" often fails those who are most wont
to sing its praises. Those who identify as liberal tend to romanticize the idea of "the people" and their right to have a voice
in our government, but then are sorely disappointed when those actual people exercise that voice in the real world. It's why most
of the liberal social agenda of the past 50 years has been achieved through the courts, the least democratic institutions in our
polity. "The people" wouldn't have voted for most of this stuff.
Since a lot of people are obviously having trouble with this concept: "Elites" are not necessarily truly unique, "brights"
are not necessarily truly bright, "gnostics" do not necessarily have true knowledge, "puritans" are not necessarily truly pure,
etc. What is being labeled is not what they truly are, but what they would have us believe they are; the reality is often very
much the contrary.
What characterizes "elites" is not really position or power, very much less intelligence or nobility of heart. The defining
characteristic of an "elite" is arrogance.
Saying "elites are the problem" is NOT to say "let us eliminate all elites" (duh). It is instead to say "let us get ourselves
different elites".
A good elite is one which uses its talents and power to pursue the common good. A bad elite is one which uses its talents and
power to pursue the good of elites alone. After deindustrialization and financialization and the Iraq War and the financial crisis
and the Great Recession and the White Death combined with the ever growing wealth and power of what Richard Reeves calls the "
dream hoarders ", it's pretty clear that we have
bad elites.
This is not to say that the masses are completely off the hook. A republic requires a virtuous elite AND virtuous masses. As
Rod Dreher notes endlessly, the American masses aren't too virtuous nowadays, either.
Cheap, imported labor lowers wages and improves profits. Moving manufacturing to China lowers wages and improves profits. Reducing
income from savings forces people into the labor force, lowering wages and increasing profits. Labor's share of national income
is at a low-point not seen since the 1920's. Corporate profitability is at an historical high point.
I don't understand what "crisis" is being spoken of here. Isn't this exactly the scenario we have been attempting to create
since Reagan? There is no crisis. This is the fruition of our conservative economic agenda. Isn't this site called "The American
Conservative"?
"Couldn't those elites see that this would happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that
their petty political prejudices were more important than the civic health of their nation?"
"Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances
no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya."
Good points. Now you may apprehend why we simple people are not so eager to react with panic to the hysteria being drummed
up by the same "elite" people and institutions that melt down every time Trump walks out of his office.
Who are these "elites"? This is the central question.
They seem to be: [1] highly educated [2] in private colleges and universities [3] mainly in the Northeast [4] and as adults
[5] employed primarily in professional occupations [6] geographically concentrated in the Boston-Washington corridor, especially
in NYC and DC.
The unparalleled expansion of the (mostly white) educated professional class in the DC area over the past generation should
occupy center stage in any conservative critique of the American elite.
if President Donald J Trump IS supremely unfit to hold the office, does that not logically (in the eyes of the author)not
make the xx million American people who voted for him supremely unfit to vote?
Not at all. It makes them supremely desperate. The most important part of the election takes place before the first primary,
when PACs and party officials determine what choices will be put before voters. Their candidates (from both parties) were likewise
supremely unfit. I don't care much for either the Libertarians or Abe Lincoln, but
Dead Abe Lincoln got one thing right: "Oh, hey America
you just got screwed." Frankly, this has been going on for decades, but it is now reaching levels of abject absurdity.
What Bruce said. In addition: who could possibly be so simple-minded as to believe that the removal of Trump will magically fix
government? Bottom line is, Trump is dangerously incompetent. There are no doubt some in gov't who would get rid of Trump for
the wrong reasons, but there are many (too many) right reasons for doing so. Some of the so-called Deep Staters will be Republicans
who understand that Trump's promise to "drain the swamp" was nothing more than an empty talking point - and more importantly,
that he's a threat to national security. Getting rid of Trump would be just one step toward fixing gov't, but would be significant
nonetheless.
Actually, Bruce, some of us lefties agree with much, though not all of what Merry says. The elites in both parties have failed
and if you want names one can go down a long list. On foreign policy, for instance, leaders in both parties like Clinton and McCain
have consistently favored more intervention and more war. The only time Trump has been popular with the elites is when he bombed
Syria.
This post was already pretty long– if Merry had gone into detail on the financial crisis and foreign policy it would have been
ten times longer.
I despise Trump too. The problem is that many of his critics are cynical opportunists.
"So tell me, if the down trodden Working class is so distraught by the elites putting them down, why do they celebrate when the
GOP House voted to take away their healthcare by removing rules on pre-existing conditions."
How you view the policies on pre-existing conditions depends on whether you are looking at premiums or benefits. If you are
looking at premiums then removing rules on pre-existing conditions will benefit you. If you are looking at benefits no so much.
You can't say that lowering premiums doesn't help working class families. There is also a fairness issue. The pre-existing exclusion
only kicks in if there has been a lapse in coverage which encourages some people to not pay into the insurance pool until they
get sick. How is that fair to all the folks who paid their premiums even when they didn't avail themselves of healthcare services?
The proposed plan only asks those who haven't been paying into the system to pay more to make the system more fair to those who
paid all along. It doesn't deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions. They can also avoid the higher payments by making
sure their coverage doesn't lapse. Yes there are those who let their coverage lapse due to a financial crisis and we do need to
have programs to assist those who truly can't pay.
Bruce's comment is nonsense. The elites are not in the least vague and unnamed, plainly referring to the mainstream "news" media
and professoriate and GOP and corporate chiefs eager for cheap labor and GOP renegades (most of them warmongers) displeased by
being upstaged. He purports to want "real" solutions but is quick to condemn real limits on immigration and trade deficits and
racism in the guise of affirmative action and comparable ornaments of "social justice." Then, those who resent the liberal status
quo and don't share Bruce's values are child-like and paranoid.
Such arrogant and abusive views as his scarcely deserve refutation.
"The elites" aren't the problem, using the phrase "the elites" in political debate is the problem. What elites, exactly, do NOT
include Trump, the nepotistic New York billionaire whose father donated a building to get him into Wharton? "Elites" is the code
word used by right wing propagandists when they're trying to induce gullible or resentful citizens into acting against their own
interests. Anyone using the term is dishonest.
John D. King contends: " corporate chiefs eager for cheap labor " are among the elites voters shunned when voting for Pres. Trump.
Um corporate chief? Donald Trump. Eager for cheap labor? Donald Trump. Elite? Donald Trump? Sending his son to an elite school
that costs as much as the school that Obama sent his daughters to? Donald Trump. The only thing about Donald Trump that isn't
elite is his drunken boor (even though he doesn't drink) rhetoric and social skills which he uses to mask his elitism. If you
want no more than symbolic anti-elitism, Donald Trump is your man, and that's what Donald Trump supporters seem to want: the feeling
that they are superior to those whom they feel have put them down for years, instead of the skills enabling them to compete with
and perhaps surpass the people they deride as elite. Meanwhile the substance of Donald Trump's life has been elitism since he
was in business school about a half century ago. No reason to believe that will change, is there?
Bob Halvorsen wrote: "Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise? The only
presidents with a minority of the popular vote are JQ Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush."
The author wrote "minority in the popular vote". To me that means LESS than 50% of the irrelevant national popular vote total.
The author is NOT saying that the presidents listed did not get the most votes in the irrelevant national popular vote, just that
they received less than 50% of the total.
Nixon 1968 – 43.4%
Clinton 1992 – 43%
Clinton 1996 – 49.2%
Wilson 1912 – 41.8%
Lincoln 1860 – 39.8%
Mueller's appointment sounds promising, all powerful politicians should be investigated if there's smoke, if not fire.
But this discussion of elites conjures up a counter-factual President Hillary, elected President with a Democratically-controlled
House, Senate, and solid 5-vote majority on the Supreme Court:
Given her campaign's numerous contacts with the Russian ambassador last year, along with an ongoing FBI investigation into
the Clinton Foundation, including but not limited to the Russian uranium agreement, State Dept. pressuring Kazakhstan to sign
off, after which donations were made, and Bill's speaking fees going up, other pay-to-play allegations involving some very nasty
governments in Africa and the Middle East
There would be no DOJ investigation, and no Special Counsel appointed. Even had she fired Comey herself on Day One. Impossible
to prove, but none of this would be happening. And I doubt the press at large would be clamoring for investigations, because there
wouldn't be any leaking going on.
If elites are good at anything, it's circumventing the rule of law by stonewalling, or burying, all investigations into wrongdoing.
The Obama DOJ excelled greatly at that sort of thing
For those of us who elected Donald Trump our President, Mr. Merry, your type of analysis is the most dangerous!
On the one hand, you point to the root of the problems: "The elites are the problem."
You correctly identify some of the main reasons why we elected Donald Trump: "[1] The hollowing out of the American working
class '[2] the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind' [3]
persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya [4]
11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon which our nation was
founded."
But then – having admitted that "Removing Trump Won't Solve America's Crisis" – you spout the elites' main talking point in
their war to overturn the election results and to get rid of Donald Trump. You trumpet the elites' biggest lie. You say: "These
people [the elites] are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job."
You are wrong, Mr. Merry. Totally wrong! President Trump is supremely qualified, and for these reasons:
• He was the only presidential candidate with the courage to stand up and identify the real problems that have been destroying
America and
• He was the only candidate with the courage to stand up to the elites and not to back down.
You say, Mr. Merry, that "three and a half more years of [Trump] raises the specter of more and more unnecessary tumult."
You're wrong again. The tumult is entirely necessary. In fact the tumult is inevitable because we Americans have finally elected
a President who is not afraid to speak to America's real problems. We have finally elected a President who has the guts to stand
up to the powerful elites who created these problems. We have finally elected a President who will fight for us – fight for us
and not back down!
The elites don't like what they see. They don't like Trump and they don't like us, because we put Trump in the White House.
Those of us who elected Donald Trump President because he fights for us are willing and able to fight for him!
"The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy-the status quo
ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America."
I don't agree at all with this assessment of what the "elites" want or expect.
I believe that the strong following Bernie Sanders had–and still has– is indicative of the large numbers of Americans who find
the the "status quo" a questionable way to proceed.
This is not an endorsement of Bernie Sanders or a lamentation that he didn't get the nomination, it is just a clarification of
terms of "what the elite want" i.e. you're barking up the wrong tree.
Also not sure who you consider an elite; the whole article seems based on flimsy assumptions.
I am thinking more and more that our only hope is partition. If California wants to let half of Mexico in, go for it. Just
don't ask Idaho or Montana to send you water when you run out. If New England and New York want to be run by Wall Street capitalists
with SJW social views, go for it. Encourage your working class and middle class people to move to the South or the Midwest and
you can be just like Brazil! A nice place to vacation run by very rich people, but inhabited by mostly poor people. Another benefit
of partition would be that the Ununited States would not have the size or resources to be the world's policeman. Sounds like a
win for almost everybody but the neo-cons and the liberal interventionists.
To be honest, I don't really agree with the thesis of this article. The idea of elite as pejoratives seems out of place with the
usage in other contexts and suggests we need a clearer articulation of what exactly it is we are angry about. This being said,
regardless of where the problem lies, these so called "elites" have done an amazing job of turning the political machine to their
advantage. We elected them – we elected Trump. I guess the thing I come back to is we need to stop seeking evidence of why we
are right and start seeking evidence of why we are wrong – especially when it comes to candidates. I honestly don't know what
this would look like or if it would be possible – but I feel like we need to change the way we know and evaluate candidates. It
feels clear to me that the things we use as yardsticks fail us and warrants a re-imaging of how we determine fitness for public
positions.
The term "elite" might well mean nothing more than "educated and knowledgeable and experienced." We can see what happens when
a rich person seems uneducated in world history, uneducated in our form or government and shows no leadership qualities for running
a government. He is not an elite. He is a bozo. Michael Jordan was an "elite" basketball player. Do you want anything less in
the top ranks of government?
The term "elite" has a negative tone for those who do not understand how difficult issues are. As was said "I never knew how
complicated health care was." And this bozo was elected.
You can only blame the elites so much in a democracy. We elect presidents who appoint judges that say corporations have a constitutional
right to give unlimited campaign contributions to politicians who work for them. We often confuse supporting our troops for supporting
whatever war they're sent to. We want to cut taxes but we also want more warplanes. We spend more than any other country on healthcare
and complain about costs but we reject systems other countries use that are proven more efficient. We spend much time complaining
about elites but, with few exceptions, we keep electing them.
Kurt Gayle: "You correctly identify some of the main reasons why we elected Donald Trump: "
Perfectly valid reasons. Unfortunately, a perfectly wrong candidate and a perfectly wrong party to support. For most of the
issues cited (excepting immigration), you'd really want a Progressive. Trump and the GOP were never going to 'clean out the swamp'
(he opened the gates to the swamp), never going to try reversing the flow of wealth away from the poor & middle classes, never
de-escalate military conflict, and never going to wrest control from "financialists".
For that work, Trump is unqualified, slow to learn and has demonstrated a disquieting disinterest in actual details.
I agree with most of the objectives you mention, but Trump was never even close to being right person for the job. Better to
wash your hands of this Administration and move on.
" The term "The Deep State" being latest iteration, allowing anybody to speculate and project their own predjudices and paranoias
as to these dark and unnamed forces as well comfortably allowing us each to excuse our own failures as being secretly the fault
of some vague and unnamed "them"."
Deep State theory originated in the New Left as a response to the Kennedy assassination, for instance with the works of Carl
Oglesby and Peter Dale Scott, who was using the phrase "deep politics" decades ago not the only way in which the modern GOP base
has started to sound like left-wingers from the old days, but one of the more surprising.
I could pretty readily contradict some of the article's details, but I will skip that in order to agree with the basic premise.
Yes, the Trump and Bernie Sanders phenomena signify a dissatisfaction with elitism. However, solutions not only exist, but abound.
One in particular presents itself as not only advisable, but as a necessary condition: I will present only that one possibility
here.
As long as big money can buy elections, elitists will rule and the masses will get shafted. The only way to keep that from
happening in perpetuity is to establish a system of public funding for elections.
Absent that change, there really is no hope. We might not like it, and we might be forced to revisit principles we thought
inviolate, but it is a necessary condition of restoring government of, by, and for the people.
The problem with our elites is they do well when the rest of the country is going down the drain.
Most of the blame attaches to Republican elites but the Dems are not immune.
Since Reagan's election and the start of the libertarian takeover of the Republican party, America has shredded the social
contract we have with one another. No more we're-in-this-together. No more we-are-our-brother's-keeper.
Instead of decent middle class jobs with all the benefits, we've moved toward a gig economy where everyone is always hustling
for the next job/client. Which the New Yorker recently called the work-until-you-die economy.
Yes, if you're talented and lucky - the Yankees bringing you up from the minors, Paramount pictures distributing the movie
you financed with credit cards, your start-up getting acquired by Microsoft - it is easier than before to become successful.
But if you're a temporary receptionist at a law firm or driving for Uber . . .
We've wrecked all the countervailing powers that inhibited capital from overwhelming labor. The share of US income going to
capital (dividends, interest, capital gains) versus labor (paychecks) has soared.
Unions are dead. Infrastructure and other public spending is gone. NAFTA was supposed to come with support for workers whose
jobs went to Mexico but Bob Dole didn't believe in coddling losers.
For-profit education and soaring tuition with bankruptcy law no longer permitting discharge of student load debt. How are those
kids ever going to afford to buy the houses older people are counting on to finance their retirements?
Years without increases in the minimum wage. (Minimum wage is the reference wage for most other wages. Up the minimum wage
and everyone earning a paycheck will soon get a raise too.)
That's what libertarians did to the Republican party and then to America. We stopped caring about the well-being of our fellow
citizens because everything is a business deal between two self-interested parties. That's how you think on Wall Street and Silicon
Valley. (And in 2008-09, when Wall Street drove the economy off a cliff, ordinary Americans bailed out the bankers.)
But if you're an out-of-work steelworker addicted to opiates? Your bad choices are not my problem.
The poster child for elites who no longer care about ordinary Americans is Pete Peterson of Blackstone. Remember his dog and
pony show about federal govt's looming fiscal crisis? His solution was to gut entitlement spending that's probably keeping a lot
of people alive.
And here's the kicker: nothing about this fiscal crisis was so severe that a solution would require billionaires like Peterson
to tighten their belts.
Trump and Sanders picked up on the rage and despair that ordinary citizens feel for our elites and what they're doing to our
country. Hillary and the rest of the Republican candidates misread the mood.
Trump is now proposing the same old Republican agenda. Tax cuts for the rich to be financed by gutting Obamacare. More deregulation
and less public spending.
Yes, America is in crisis. Support for democratic norms is razor-thin and declining.
This country needs to recommit to a social contract. And a social safety net. We're all in this together. The rich can't do
well at the expense of everyone else if this country is to live up to our ideals.
Back in the 1950s, the head of General Motors told a congressional hearing that he always thought that what was good for GM
was good for America and what was good for America was good for GM. He got laughed at. But he was right. If he's selling cars,
it means people are feeling good about their prospects.
I'm waiting for a presidential candidate who promises that the rich are going to bear the biggest share of the burden when
Americans roll up our sleeves to fix our country. He'll win in a landslide.
If wealth equals power then the only way you are going to limit the power of the elites is by massive campaign reform that would
curtail the influence the wealth of the elites currently has over the political process. Neither Republicans or Democrats have
shown the slightest interest in meaningful campaign reform for the simple reason that it is easier fund a campaign with millions
from the elites who donate directly to a campaign and indirectly through a PAC. Without meaningful campaign reform the US will
slowly but surely slip from being a democracy to an oligarchy run by the elites for the benefit of the elites. The crisis in the
US is that it seems most citizens seem willing to accept that because of their wealth the elites are more likely to know how to
govern. Sadly these citizens are having to learn that being a wealthy elite like Trump does not automatically mean that he knows
how to govern.
As a moderate lifelong Republican, I was a NeverTrumper through the primaries where my guy (Rubio) did well in my state, winning
the contest. Only after Trump prevailed did I go off for a few hours on a long walk to contemplate what this meant for me, my
party and my nation. I concluded that Trump was a necessary evil if we were serious about giving the 100,000,000 working men and
women in this country a fair shake at the American Dream. Someone had to be ballsy enough to reconstruct the Federal Bureacracy
and anyone less than a guy like Trump would wilt in the heat generated by the left leaning media and left leaning Federal Bureaucracy.
Let's face it. Had HRC won absolutely nothing would have changed except our acceptance of corruption in our body politic. I
still have hope that the Federal Government can be right-sized and the power redistributed to the United States of America not
DC.
Therein lies the fight of our time. We can either concede the fight and let DC make all the decisions (including whether to
fix the pot holes on my local streets)to we can ask what each citizen can do for his or her country. It's a binary choice really.
You either believe that all the power should reside with the Feds and the dictates and mandates that go with power being held
1000 miles away .or you're in favor of 95% of the decisions that impact you locally and in your state.
If you need to find out where someone sits on this issue, ask them 2 simple questions.
1) Who is Joe Biden?
2) Name just 2 people from all of the following: Who's your Mayor? City Council? County Commission? School Board? State Senator?
State Rep? Lt. Governor? School Board?
The Trump era will be cathartic or emetic. Government operations will be so confused and erratic that people will start to think
that maybe elite rule wasn't so bad and will look forward to "the grown-ups" taking over again. Of course, every new administration
now claims to be "the grown-ups" reasserting themselves - that's come to be a given - but those pretensions will be taken more
seriously when the next administration takes over.
So are the elites to blame? Well, in a way. They have their agenda, and it's not always shared by ordinary Americans. But ordinary
Americans don't agree with each other all that often, and depending on what the issue is, some parts of the general public are
closer to the governing elites than they are to other parts of the public. It could be that elites manage to get enough support
from non-elite voters to stay in office.
But also, competence is a factor. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about elites, but much of the energy of governing
elites may go into being just well-informed enough to do a half-way credible job of staying on top of events, rather than into
deep-laid plans to thwart popular wishes.
"All this contributed significantly to the hollowing out of the American working class-once the central foundation of the country's
economic muscle and political stability. Now these are the forgotten Americans, deplorable to Hillary Clinton and her elite followers,
left without jobs and increasingly bereft of purpose and hope."
Nice try.
Three things led to the "hollowing out" of the American working class, and they have nothing to do with ephemeral vaporings
about "divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks."
1. Automation – and there's just no way around that – the semi-skilled and some skilled jobs giving lower-educated workers
a strong middle class life are gone.
2. "Reagan Democrats" who've been voting staunchly Republican and stood by watching and nodding while conservatives have eviscerated
and vilified union jobs that also supported a middle class lifestyle (see, e.g., "right-to-work" states).
3. Globalization (abetted by both parties) that shipped these jobs overseas – although there's no clear solution to this in
an emergent 21st-century global economy.
Look, I grew up outside of Detroit and knew families and friends who didn't go to college, but went to work on the line and
could afford a middle class life. For the reasons listed above, those days are gone forever.
Who are these "elites"? This is the central question.
They seem to be: [1] highly educated [2] in private colleges and universities [3] mainly in the Northeast [4] and as adults
[5] employed primarily in professional occupations [6] geographically concentrated in the Boston-Washington corridor, especially
in NYC and DC.
Using that definition, the author of this post is an elite. But I bet he claims he is not.
The thing is, Mr. Merry is a journalist. I'm hearing a lot about how dastardly THEY are from Trump supporters.
As long as big money can buy elections, elitists will rule and the masses will get shafted. The only way to keep that from
happening in perpetuity is to establish a system of public funding for elections.
I agree wholeheartedly. Does anyone who is not rich think that money = speech? What other democracy has an election funding
system as bizarre as ours?
Trump's "populism" is based on the same old demagogue's standbys: xenophobia, scapegoating, racism, anti-intellectualism, economic
anxiety, nationalism, and a yearning for an idealized past that never existed. The idea of Trump as some shirt-sleeved populist
warrior who is going to correct the inequities of wealth distribution in the U.S. is too laughable to bother with. I would refer
anyone to the two health care bills he has championed so far, which were poorly disguised attempts to enrich the wealthy even
further, while robbing tens of millions of their ability to afford health insurance.
Sorry, but the problem is not the "elite" but the "elitists": them that's curried favor-always monetary-w/ other elitists in exchange
for donations at election time. With Clinton & Trump, we had two elitists that thought they deserved the pres'y & were propelled
by the elitists running the campaigns & parties that hoped to gain from either of those two in the W.H.
Meanwhile, the press worked feverishly to turn Clinton & Trump into viable candidates-w/ ancient, useless labels like "liberal,"
progressive"; "anti-establishment," "populist"-& convinced voters that they were the "best men" for the job.
So I ended up voting for our state's Repo. gov.; who in turn voted for his own father, an 88-yr-old former congressman. That
was effect elitists had on some of us.
April 25, 2017 Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing
In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking
conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10. He defends
himself by saying he was betrayed by his client and that he followed proper internal channels by giving the dossier to Sen. John
McCain, Arizona Republican, to alert the U.S. government.
"Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise?"
Because the author is letting his partisanship relive him of his good sense. Or he is as numerically challenged as his president,
who knows?
These people won PLURALITIES of the popular vote. So did Hillary Clinton. They all received the most votes in an election with
three or more candidates but received less votes than the total that voted for some one else. Everyone on the planet besides third-world
dictators and Republicans generally describe this phenomenon as "winning an election".
A plurality is very different from getting a minority of the vote like Trump did. I am sure that Merry knows this. If you don't
believe me, go ask the folks who voted Green and Libertarian who they would have voted for as a second choice if they were forced
to
And BTW, a lot of those immigrants (to whom I do not object) are here because of America's fascination with foreign wars and
intrusions. Think "boat people," for example, or Iranian refugees or Cuban, etc., etc. Our stupidity produces moral obligations.
Contra the demos-fueled hissy-fit over "Elites", I have no problem with Elites running the world. For one thing, they (Elites)
always have run the world, and that isn't going to change, except cosmetically.
Nor do I have a problem with them reasonably rewarding themselves for their efforts.
Experiments with direct participatory democracy have usually ended in the sort of lynch-mobbing which murdered Socrates.
I have neither time nor interest in attending to every pettyfrogging detail of running a village government, let alone one
of 300 million souls. Even with the Internet, "direct democracy" ends up being run by a few (reference Athens, if any doubt).
The current outrage-aholic fixation over "elites" is not because they are Elites, but because they are INCOMPETENT Elites.
It is said the Brits lost the Empire because they forgot how to govern, and now, it is our turn.
Eric Hoffer told us how Elites fall back in 1950 (The True Believer), but we were so fat and happy we ignored what he said.
Besides, he was a longshoreman, with no credentials. What did he know?
My preference is for Them to fix Their problem, and to get back running affairs properly.
Then I can focus on playing with my grandkids, flirting with my wife, and drinking beer in late afternoon with Old Blue at
my feet.
Well, he talks and tweets a lot. But NAFTA is still in force (he learned of downsides of ash canning it), Iran sanctions have
not been increased (maybe he thought of jobs related to jet sales important), he is talking with Russia (as opposed to talking
about it), and has let all know about his aversion to gassing civilians.
Let us continue to observe what he does, not what he tweets. I plan to come back in late July and take a look, 100 days just
is too short to come to a decision.
So true. Another of the few sane voices, with intellectual heft to match that sobriety. Wish Rod Dreher would read and be convinced
by your salient analysis, even if against his will. I think too many conservatives genuflect to established hierarchy, whatever
its faults, out of a character that is disposed to distrust change, even needed change. I myself do not buy into the reasoning,
"better the devil we know." I really think only the relatively well off can sustain such a view, whether in Manhattan or connected
to it via the internet in Baton Rouge. The rest of us are too desperate.
The elites truly are the problem. Just like those who blame Russia, they won't take ownership. They will need one heckuva Homeland
Security and clampdown on the population they view as intolerable, once they have their coup against democracy. It is certain
to be a pyrrhic victory though, as no elites in history ever gave up their power willingly or peacefully, yet in every case they
were forcibly removed in paroxysms of violence by angry mobs of citizens who lost faith in a rigged system that would not allow
needed peaceful change.
So Trump lacks all the qualities and attributes of a proper President. What exactly are those qualities beyond getting elected?
Who are the great examples Trump should imitate? Let's see, the community organizer? The son of a Bush? The man from Hope? Poppy
Bush? I am one who admired Reagan but he did run up the debt. The quality these people share is a ludicrous vanity. Can't understand
the notion that Trump is far below the rest of these flawed human beings. He seems to be just another one. What the heck, he might
turn out to be effective. It is way too early to know.
Very true. The elites want to turf Trump because he is jeopardising a model that sustains their salaries and prestige, yet of
course they can still not offer an alternative to what was there before.
The elites can't look outside the system, to something beyond the system, because that is, by definition, something they can't
control or make false promises about. The deeper problem is they are unwilling to even have this conversation, for fear it would
lead to a logical conclusion about the inadequacies of power.
What a bore and a canard; Trump_vs_deep_state has shown itself in capable of competent and capable public policy; quick on the trigger to
tear everything down but in coherent and undisciplined to build anything of consequence to replace it. I'll take the elites any
day over nihilism and petulance. Trump is the mirror image of his voters and it gives me great satisfaction to see their political
fortunes grind to dust Over their own incompetence.
Meh. People keep screaming about a "crisis" but aren't able to actually point to one. The economy is doing well. Crime is at historic
lows. There are so few actual problems that people are taking to manufacturing them (e.g. opioids).
I think the real issue here is that the politically-powerful Baby Boom is approaching the final years of its narcissistic,
navel-gazing existence, and assumes the entire world disappears when they do.
This article does a good job stitching together much of the Elites' sins. It is apparent to me that the American government can't
be reformed from within by electing reform candidates. If reform is possible, it can't come from the Northeast and West Coast.
It will never come from a Harvard, or any other Ivy League school, graduate. It won't come from a Boston Catholic person or New
York Jewish-American. It won't come from a Baby Boomer who wishes to continue to prop up the social changes they ushered in the
60s and 70s. I would expect actual reform to come from a young person in the American Heartland, which the bi-coastal elites deride
as "Flyover Country." Wasn't it the "Rust Belt" who showed us the way in the 2016 election? And if and when reform (i.e. the non-violent
neutering of the Elites' power abuses) comes, the reformers had better be prepared with a total package and not just one candidate.
It may be a one-time opportunity, and must be executed with the utmost strategy and determination.
But We Trump supporters are quite happy with his actions so far. We know the press is rigged against him. It is distressing to
see the elitist Republicans attack him too though. You are right about the divide, but this may be our last best hope of taking
the government back
if President Donald J Trump IS supremely unfit to hold the office, does that not logically (in the eyes of the author)not make
the xx million American people who voted for him supremely unfit to vote? Startling hubris if you ask me.
Basically agree with the author;s position but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, stop calling elitists, elites. They are not "superior to
the rest in terms of ability or qualities" in fact, they are frequently inferior.
When Sen. Schumer announced, on MSNBC, that a president going against the CIA is 'stupid' because 'they have six ways from Sunday
of getting back at you,' doesn't that scream 'crisis' from the rooftops? Since when does America, allegedly a democratic republic,
assume elected presidents are the subordinates of the CIA? Well, de facto, probably for many years, but to actually openly approve
of it?
But there was no even discussion of his statement! It set off no alarm bells, no demands for reigning in the CIA ('the intelligence
"community"'). Why not? Presumably because the short-term interests of too many elites aligned in this case with that of the deep
state. The habit of 'whatever works for me, for the moment' won out, once again, further degrading the political culture right
at its institutional heart.
And also because Schumer is right. It isn't smart to criticize the CIA It wouldn't be good for your career, you know what
I mean? ('What are ya, a Russian commie or something?').
Merry is absolutely right. Removing Trump does nothing. It does less than nothing. It drives the disease even further into
the body politic. The only solution is honesty and courage. Can we muster it?
So tell me, if the down trodden Working class is so distraught by the elites putting them down, why do they celebrate when the
GOP House voted to take away their healthcare by removing rules on pre-existing conditions.
Say what you will about Obama and his
looking down on the people", but take him on his actions and he has done more to help the lower class through legislation and
executive orders than any other president in the past 30 years.
But wait, he didn't do anything about immigration. So therefore ignore all the laws, ignore the rules changed, just focus on
the revamped Know Nothings afraid of 3% of the population.
Principled opposition to President Trump's character is limited to this magazine and a tiny handful of like minded pundits and
politicians.
If Trump had run on Hillary Clinton's platform, and if he were ruling in accordance with that platform, waging a war for regime
change in Syria, signing TPP or some equivalent, refusing to enforce the immigration laws, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants,
and greatly increasing the number of legal immigrants, the Democrats and neocons would be praising him to the skies and supporting
him to the hilt.
If, on the other hand, someone other than Trump, Pat Buchanan for instance, had been elected on Trump's platform, the Democrats
and neocons would be attacking him with all the hysterical venom they are now hurling at Trump (remember the brief deranged hysteria
that followed Buchanan's 1996 primary win in New Hampshire?) – and I suspect some of those who pass for principled critics of
Trump's character would be caught up in this hypothetical anti-Buchanan hysteria, because of their sheer weak-willed yearning
for social acceptance.
If you want to really be serious about "fitness to lead", it has been a very long time since the USA has had a president who was
fit to lead.
The fact is, though, that the first rumblings of "impeachment" started before the Electoral College even met, back while Democrats
were still hoping to nullify what happened on election night through the Electoral College.
The whole Russian angle is simply a pretext. No one is saying that Russia hacked into the voting machines and added or subtracted
votes; at most they are accused of having done the kind of thing investigative journalists are praised for having done. When,
in the midst of the American election, British parliamentarians discussed banning Trump from the UK, **THAT** was much more serious
and overt tampering with our election, yet no one cares about that, because the UK is the land of Peter Pan and Mary Poppins,
whereas Russia is the bogeyman. Thus we see headlines about Russian jets "buzzing" the coast of Alaska, only to read further down
that by "buzzing" we mean they were 20+ miles into international airspace. Apparently it's an outrage that they should come within
a thousand miles of American airspace. American spy planes in the Black Sea are a different story: after all, they remained in
international air space the whole time!
It is dangerous to cast Russia unnecessarily in the role of villain, but it is even more dangerous to engineer even the softest
of coups. Once that is done, there is no going back. Very likely there would be widespread protests, many of them violent, and
a large portion of the public would see the de facto government as not merely corrupt and foolish, but completely invalid. The
"authorities" would probably be able to crush dissent, but only by going full-on Stalin. What happens after that, who knows, but
this story would not have any happy ending.
As usual, Merry's insights are useful and informed.However, Clinton, warts and all, would have more likely eased the pain of many
Americans. Her campaign focused too much on aggrieved minorities and not enough on the pain shared by all but her policies would
have more likely checked the manic redistribution of wealth from middle class to elite, ended the health care impasse that cruelly
toys with people, made education more accessible and enhanced investments in science and technology that could create jobs in
the coming years. With regard to immigration, it is true that adding so many immigrants to the population at a time when decent-paying
jobs were being eliminated through technology created a bad optic but the ban or removal of millions of immigrants would not really
restore middle class stability. Elites in both parties have made mistakes and been entirely too attentive to those who give the
most money but let's not legitimize Trump's mixture of exploiting anger with false promises and pushing policies that will make
the plight of working people even more desperate. Clinton might not have shaken up an elitist system she helped create but she
would not have shaken our democratic institutions and attacked an already fragile polity the way Trump has and will continue to
do for another 3 and half years. Like it or not, elites and disenfranchised will eventually have to work together and Trump has
set back this inevitable and urgent collaboration years, if not forever.
Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise? The only presidents with a minority
of the popular vote are JQ Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush.
A self-described "publishing executive" who writes magazine/blog articles for a living is a member of the "elite"! Condemned
out of his own mouth. By his own vanity, perhaps.
And the case is hardly made by deliberately misstating facts.
65 million people voted for Hillary Clinton for President. Is that 65 million "elites," or 65 million "dupes" too stupid to
"see through her"? 65 million irresponsible citizens? Are these 65 million the real "deplorables"?
I don't expect to see any mea culpa statements from the numerous conservative writers and talking heads who made excuses
for Trump's selection as candidate prior to the election. Many of those excuses were promulgated through TAC. But a look in the
mirror, and a conversation with that "still, small voice" could be therapeutic for many of you.
Not Hillary Clinton, not the Democratic Party, not the 65 million "deplorables," were responsible for conservatives' decision
to go with a manifestly unsuitable candidate. Once again, those declaiming most loudly about "personal responsibility" - lack
it.
Good piece. Clearly the many leakers aren't concerned about national security consequences. This is only about bringing down Trump.
After all, the journalist establishment extolled Snowden for leaking tons of classified information. Trump might help himself
by being a little more "political," and learning to fight the right battles.
I hope your article gains a large readership that includes the nevertrump cadre. It is probably a pipe dream to hope they would
wake up and become aware of how they and their preference for Hillary look to many of the 63 million people who voted for Trump.
They knew he was inexperienced, coarse, and a mixed bag. They also know he's only been in office for 4 months and the obstruction,
malicious leaks, and malignant hatred of Trump began long before he took office.
Too many in the nevertrump cadre come off as self-righteous, smug Pharisees for whom conservatism has become a religion. For
some reason, they think their own character, knowledge, and judgement is impeccable with no room for correction by 63 million
voters. The vox populi needs the elites to override them. Such hubris. We are well aware that they would rather have had a Hillary
presidency. Are they any more mature than the Left in dealing with defeat? Apparently not.
Glenn Reynolds (professor of law) sums up the situation this way: "The childish response of Democrats - and 'NeverTrump' Republicans
- to the 2016 election has done more damage to American politics and institutions than any foreign meddling could do." It would
behoove the nevertrumpers to consider what they are sowing and reaping. Has their hatred of Trump and smug self-righteousness
made them deaf, dumb, and blind?
I think Victor Davis Hanson's article (see link below) has articulated the situation best and is best read as a whole instead
of excerpted. The National Review's readership fell greatly prior to the election because of the nevertrumpers pomposity, but
not the readership of VDH's articles at the NRO. Perhaps instead of silently disagreeing, the vox populi need to intervene and
impeach the nevertrumpers.
You elected a chump over all the obvious reasons not to, and he iS going to go before the end of the summer, either for the reasons
already in.front of us or for the new ones he will give us in.the next 60 days. Get your stupid saves out of the way now and allow
the republic to recover.
Btw the "you elected" phrase above is predicated on.the idea that the chump really won.the election, Cuz it's quite clear he
may not have.
The problem is not the elite, but a POTUS who is ignorant and arrogant,who is unqualified and inept and who is a man-child trying
to be a leader. He makes his own issues by opening his mouth and saying stupid things and insisting they are true, and doing stupid
things and insisting they are good. It is obvious he has no plan for anything and doesn't understand much of what is going on
around him. He never talks about anything of substance; on health care, Price had to deal with details, and with the tax plan,
it was Cohn who revealed that amazing one page initiative. When he does talk, he stupidly gives intel to our enemies. Trump is
an idiot with a pen and that is the problem and it is a problem for this country.
Excellent article. Can it be possible that the meritocratic oligarchy which runs this country still doesn't "get it?" Do they
really believe that getting rid of Trump solves the problem? Can it be possible that they still can't see that absent proof of
actual malfeasance, driving Trump out of office could make things even worse, as if things aren't bad already.
As the days and weeks go by it is becoming increasingly clear that the answer is–yes.
This is, far and away, the best summary of our current situation I have read anywhere. Outstanding!
One area around immigration could, however, be improved to truly capture why there is so much anger at the elites. On immigration,
the article states: "Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate on the merits of the issue-whether mass immigration is
good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns and threatens to erode America's underlying culture.
Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted and even fostered by the nation's elites, has driven
a powerful wedge through America. "
While true, this still misses the main point. The point is that the nation has existing laws to control immigration. Because
the elites could not change the law through the democratic process, they opted instead to just ignore the laws, with absolutely
no consequences except for those who live in the communities impacted.
In this context, the significance of the Clinton email scandal was magnified as it represented, again, the elites clearly violating
the law with no consequences.
The lawlessness aspect is a critical point that needs to be emphasized. The elite backlash is not just about policy disagreements,
its about a class of people (elites) violating/ignoring the law for their own benefit and at the expense of others. The very fact
that this could happen exposes how broken the system really is.
And btw.. Tho the author here is a smart and good writer, this whole "elites" thing is a stupid argument.I agree that we democrats
were too cowardly to nominate Bernie, whose whole message and absolute unlikelihood was most aligned with the spirit of the times.
As a party we thought small and thus became small. But Hillary was so vastly superior to any of the republican candidates that
the problem has nothing to do with right wing elites and everything to do with that large swath of the right wing which simply
is deplorable. They are deplorable and they deserve to know that the nation as a whole knows them to.be such. There wzz a time
when they knew their place– way down a hole with the boot of the nation s conscience firmly on.the top of their head. The right
let them emerge from.that hole during the advent of the tea party Cuz it liked the fact that those losers were giving their movement
breadth and energy.
But don't think for a minute that those millions of prejudiced, disgusting people have been redeemed by the chumps supposed
victory, they haven't. Maybe Hillary shouldn't have called them.such, idk, but the fact of their existence being a cancer in.the
republic is as correct today as it was 400 years ago and in.every generation.to.follow.
With the absolute control the elites have upon the military industrial complex, the traditional media outlets, the bureaucratic
"three-letter" departments of governance, as well as the powerful influence over both the judicial and legislative branches of
the governmnet, it seems impossible to me that such a group could be thrown off by its citizenry by violent uprising or otherwise.
Just watch some of the video of Chaffets lead intelligence committee trying to access information regarding the Clinton servers
and you will begin to see the incredible scope of the problem we face in America and the world today. Just as it was God that
delivered a rag-tag band of America patriots from the hands of elite-based tyranny at the founding of our country, it will take
an act of God to remove the chains and shackles of the Deep State from off the necks of the American people. Unfortunately a growing
number of Americans are turning their back on the only real chance of deliverance we have – He who delivered the Hebrews from
the Egyptian elites can delver us also.
In the day when we received our news of national and international goings on via newspapers, there was a space for reflection
and contemplation, and even some semblance of reasoned debate.
That ship has sailed, never to return and we are in the day of "Amusing Ourselves to Death"
It used to take some time and effort to form a proper mob.
What defines this shadowy type – "elite?" Educated? Financially well off? Aren't you an elite? Or does it only apply to liberals
and Democrats? How would you define yourself?
Apologies for a poorly written comment. The vox populi is a reference to a Douthat tweet: "7. But what, in the end, are elites
for? What justifies their existence? Some sort of wisdom that the vox populi can lack." Douthat's article, his tweet storm, and
the lack of strong repudiation from the nevertrump cadre pretty much ended my patience with all of them. It has become almost
impossible to tell the difference between the hysterical Left and the outraged nevertrump cadre. This last week has been such
a delightful display of how the media, establishment elites, and nevertrumpers feel about those 63 million unredeemable deplorable
Americans who voted for Trump. Thank you for allowing me to comment.
I agree with this. I voted for Trump and told my wife several times before voting, "I don't think Trump will be a good president.
I'm voting for him to send a "f- you" to the elites who run this country.
When I say elites, I don't mean only the high and mighty. In my hometown, where I have lived all my life, our city council
has handed millions of tax dollars to the region's largest car dealer to expand yet again. They pledged $1 million to lure a Hobby
Lobby even though it is in direct competition with a Michael's store that has been here for years. They bought property for $1
million, knocked down the building on it, prepared the site for development, then "sold" it to a developer for $10.
That kind of favoritism has been running wild in my little town - a little town controlled entirely by people who call themselves
Republicans.
"When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that
the elites are the problem."
The problem is the industrialized disinformation machine that continues to spew hatred and lies. One side thinks it's the liberal
media, and the other side thinks it's RW talk radio and Fox News. It's easy to figure out which one is the real problem. There
are facts and there are internet rumors that are passed off as facts. Both can't be true. And even in the face of clear evidence,
primarily one side continues to believe the rumors and lies. Can't argue with delusion.
This article makes some good points. Trump was elected fair and square and the case against him is straight out of fantasy land.
BUT then there is the snotty rhetoric that Trump is "uncouth," the same sort of rhetoric employed by the elite New York Times.
Frankly I do not care about Trump's table manners. I do care that he has sought detente 2.0 with Russia and has killed off the
TPP, not only a lousy trade deal but also the economic limb of Hillary's military/economic assault (aka pivot) to China.
So I dismiss charges that Trump is "unfit" or "lacks nearly all the characteristics or attributes that a president should have.".
And I have little confidence in a writer who looks at things in such an arrogant way. That he is the new editor of The American
Conservative is enough to make me reconsider the contributions I make to this journal. Pat Buchanan and Bill Kauffman, yes. Merry?
I wonder.
I don't think the abundance of evidence that members of the Trump team met with Russian officials during the campaign can be called
"minor infractions against the president". These are certainly serious allegations. It was clear early in the Trump presidency
that he was not surrounding himself with people capable of carrying out the vision he articulated in his campaign for restoring
America's middle class. He made many picks from the ranks of the elites including his Vice President and Attorney General. His
selection seemed to favor loyalty rather than building a team that could make the changes he campaigned on. His Treasury pick
is straight from Wall Street and his foreign policy team is praised by the elites. Donald Trump is not the agent for change. You
can't differentiate him from the elites because he surrounded himself with them.
What the elites don't understand is that there are lot more of us than of them. If they try to take the election away from the
people who support President Trump. They will have a war on their hands and not a war of words.
Written by a Never-Trump, this article is absolute BS concerning the fact that President Trump is "unfit" for the office of the
presidency. The article is, however, absolutely correct about the elites who have thrown their middle finger in the face of WE
THE PEOPLE of the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC of the USA, but WE THE PEOPLE elected President Trump to drain the swamp and he will.
The true enemy of the USA is the elected class in D.C. and their cronies like Buffet, Steyer, Gates and the Soros Democrat Marxist
Party and the utter traitorous actions by Obama. President Trump has to rid us of all Obamaites and has to slam the RINO traitors
to the ground. President Trump is perfectly fit to be president and certainly more so than some community organizer who hates
the USA and works to destroy her. Merry's hatred of President trump is boundless and shows him to be among the elites of the "media,"
a terrible curse on the USA. Thank God for President Trump and for FLOTUS Melanie Trump who has returned dignity, grace, class,
and beauty to the White House after eight years of hate-filled, resentful, nasty, and cloddish behavior by Michelle Obama who
disrespected the American people, spending millions of American posterity hard-earned money on herself and her family. Where was
your article about the corruption of Obama and his breaking of our laws and his utter and disgusting spitting on his oath to our
Constitution, Merry?
I am still confused how a billionaire was NOT considered 'elite' to the working class.. Does this not baffle anyone? OK, I get
that America on both sides, left and right, is sick of getting screwed over by the elites. But Trump is no friend to the working
man. He is only helping all his billionaire elite friends and creating practices that will hurt the working class who elected
him, whether via healthcare reform or promising coal miners they can have their jobs back, when everyone knows that sector is
dying. The rest of the world is getting ahead of us, in technology, infrastructure, renewable energy sources, etc. The divide
between conservatives and liberals has become so ridiculous that no one cares about making the US a better place. Trump's laughable
campaign slogan worked miracles in convincing voters, but I think everyone has sobered up to the dangers that Trump poses in so
many ways. We might be tired of politicians in Washington, but if most of us are honest, this 'shake-up' is going to do a lot
of damage. Maybe it's what we need in the long run to be able to change things, but all the laws and deregulation have only made
the elite stronger. It makes companies bigger, and the working man poorly treated and expendable.
Please help me understand. What remedies are you recommending? The reason I ask is because these accusations against a class of
people, the elites, rather than against specific wrongful acts smack of Mao and the Cultural Revolution to me. I sense that some
wish to see professors and newspaper editors working in fields with hand tools. I may have misread this posting, but Fran Macadam's
comments sound like a call for at least a sharp turn to me.
I'm not buying the "it's the elites" problem. An 'elite', more often than not, is someone who is using power in a way we don't
like, along with that person's clique. This is akin to using the term, 'activist judges'.
Ultimately, a democracy always gets the leaders it deserves. Once in a great while, it gets better leaders than it deserves.
There will always be facilitators of our worst instincts but ultimately, people have a choice. If a democracy is dysfunctional,
it's not because some 'elites' or 'deep state' have taken over everything. It's because the voters kept electing idiots and representatives
that didn't truly represent their interests.
Regarding the history of immigration in the United States, the Census Bureau says that the post-1850 peak was in 1890 when 14.8%
of residents were foreign born, followed closely by 1910 when 14.7% were foreign born.
Pew estimates that the US will break these records around 2025. Soon we'll have to go back to the mid-1700s to find a period
in American history with a level of immigration we will be experiencing in the near future.
-Vince Hill said: "What the elites don't understand is that there are lot more of us than of them. If they try to take the election
away from the people who support President Trump. They will have a war on their hands and not a war of words."
Those masses are not relevant to those "Elites" and are cannon fodder. The term "Deplorables" says it all. The masses are not
worthy of any consideration. Those "Deplorables" are an obstacle to be eliminated for the greater good. You don't need shadow
govt conspiracies to see this kind of stuff anymore. The blatant lies and manipulations from DC and the media originating from
Dems and Repubs is there for all to see. The 2016 election cycle was a wake-up call. Neither candidate was fit to be a President.
Both are crooked. Yet, the majority of sheep on both sides continue toward their slaughter. Trump may yet get us blown to bits,
but I no longer care about saving the status quo. The majority of people have spoken in this this country and we have been broken
for many Presidencies. The future of this nation, as is, is ugly, if one exists at all.
Mr. Trump is not the issue. And from what I have come to understand about Washington language from top to bottom, his language
isn't the issue either, in my view.
Whether he is unfit cannot even be addressed though I suspect he is, if one examines the long history of the office. I don't
have any doubt that Mr Trump is an effective admin as head of state. As a non-politician, there may be some issues. And his policy
and social positions may not square with my own. But that alone would not make him unfit. His temperament would not take unfit
either. But having to sift through the emotional tantrums of so many in leadership, influence and power to make that assessment
is a very tough slog.
Now we have a secret source that indicates a Mr. Trump did something or other in pressing for an end of needless investigations,
as any CEO might, if said investigations were hindering the effectiveness of his tenure. And clearly its a disruptive fire. The
seed of which were laid immediately as it became clear that Mr Trump, now Pres Trump was a contender. There was talk of impeachment
before the election, and while I appreciated the "heads up", it was disappointing that the agenda for the net four years was to
impeachment a man even before he took office.
I once said that Mr Trump was be given the royal "black treatment" and I stand by those comments. Everything he does, says,
is a minefield. There are no mines, but there are explosions from multiple corners. I have to say, even some of the authors on
TAC are are straining credulity, credibility with their "end of the world", "doom and gloom" commentary. The minefield, once again
has not evidence, but rather, so and so said thus. There's nothing documented that Pres Trump has done anything to hinder anything
about Russia or Gen Flynn. This type of scrutiny makes it impossible to do one's job.
I have been in communication for a long long time. And while my life is but a wreck at the moment. I have had some successes
in competitive speech, and coaching. When I did my master's degree, I was unfit for teaching as a grad assistant. Not because
of a lack of skill, knowledge or expertise, but because by every measure I had. What made the post a total disaster was the scrutiny
as if I I had never done anything of the kind. If you have been teaching a while, there are things you know that a grad just have
a clue about. My adviser attempted to fit my roundness into a nonexistent square peg. The entire graduate program was a disaster
and a disaster in every way. They simply had no clue how to manage someone who had long past graduate level knowledge or experience.
And much to failure, I did, wouldn't, couldn't communicate that fact, though given the internal politics of the place, I doubt
it would have mattered. The behaviors were at best dysfunctional at worst criminal. If I wasn't already highly suspicious, by
the time I left, I was certainly distrustful. I was asked if I wanted to pursue legal redress - the idea of that mess has always
been a route to be avoided, save for defense. "People are people, and sometimes they just do dumb stuff," was my attitude. I was
probably incorrect, dumb, innocent or malicious it was deeply beyond the pail.
Pres. Trump has entered an arena in which he has no respite from the attack or question of every aspect of his being and on
every matter. While, a Pres should expect scrutiny, what he has been subjected is over Everest unreasonable and reasoned. The
constant hyperbolic crisis mongering from people who supposedly have a better temperament, judiciousness, and higher moral code
is a tad bit "funny".
No. Humorous.
What is in play and of deep concern are the repeated manufactured crisis to disrupt his tenure Crisis mongering that began
shortly after 9/11 and has progressed with increasing speed, oddly enough when actual crisis have subsided. Aside form the economy,
the country faces no "real" threat beyond securing the border.
Given our rather carelessness action in the region of the middle east, we had better obey the security protocols prior to 9/11
any of which would have prevented the attack or severely diminished its success. Checking expired passports would have been helpful
– devastating to the attackers.
In Compton, Detroit, NYC, Tallahassee, Birmingham, there are hard working folks trying to figure out how they are going to
compete against the immigrant who's labor is cheaper, who doesn't contribute to the community as much as they draw. They are trying
to figure out how to be fair to their issues, without starving their own. They are doing everything possible to avoid being "deplorable"
and always have. And yet the representatives of their locals are about dealing with muckraking needlessly.
-----
"Sad!"
Boy. it's not a good sign when you are sad. Stay fiesty!
Those in opposition made it clear where they stood before the election. And Mr. Trump has just started to climb this long hill.
There's no reason for the war to turn violent, we are some distance from that turn and even the suggestion is hard to hear.
It suggests a state of threat that need not be aired. In many ways, this situation is airing out the problem, for those brave
enough to acknowledge it.
Though avoiding confrontation of any kind hasn't aided me much, I admit.
ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and
unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be
in danger....
"... Unfortunately, while identifying this past week as the proverbial 'beginning of the end' for Herr Donald's presidency isn't all that hard, untangling precisely why the President won't be able to weather this storm and will eventually be abandoned by the Republican Party is a little more difficult; especially in light of the fact that partisan mainstream liberals are still shouting objectively insane conspiracy theories about Russiagate even though Trump's total lack of respect for his job and fat f*cking mouth have all but handed them his political a** on a platter" ..."
"... The headline: "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources" [ Reuters ]. The body: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far." Ah, the sources are "people." Excellent. We're making real progress, here. I mean, at least they aren't dinosaurs or space aliens. ..."
"... Leakers From the Deep State Need to Face Criminal Charges" ..."
I'm genuinely amazed. The cray cray is an order of magnitude worse than the run-up to the Iraq
War. Go ahead and read the article; the thesis is that Russian bots on the Twitter are a bigger
threat to the United States than the fake stories the Bush White House planted in the press to
start the Iraq War. As always, the scandal is what's normal. Oh, and when did James "
Not Wittingly " Clapper emerge as a Hero of The Republic? Did I not get the memo? Presenting
Clapper as
a defender
of "the very foundation of our democratic political system" (his words) is like presenting
Jerry Sandusky as a defender of the value of cold showers.
"More than 10 centrist Republicans over the past 48 hours have criticized Trump for reportedly
sharing classified information with Russian officials or allegedly trying to quash an FBI investigation"
[
Politico ].
"Two moderate Senate Republicans suggest the need to consider a special prosecutor" [
WaPo ]. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). This happened well before
the Rosenstein announcement; I'm guessing it was the crack in the dam.
"4 Reasons Why Robert Mueller Is an Ideal Special Counsel" [
The Nation ]. "[Mueller] was among the individuals in the Justice Department who assembled
at Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bedside in 2004 to block the Bush White House's attempt
to renew a surveillance policy that Mueller and others, including James Comey, deemed to be illegal."
That's good, but 2017 – 2004 = 13 years. That's a long time for a halo to stay buffed (as we saw
with Comey).
"Unfortunately, while identifying this past week as the proverbial 'beginning of the end' for
Herr Donald's presidency isn't all that hard, untangling precisely why the President won't be
able to weather this storm and will eventually be abandoned by the Republican Party is a little
more difficult; especially in light of the fact that partisan mainstream liberals are still shouting
objectively insane conspiracy theories about Russiagate even though Trump's total lack of respect
for his job and fat f*cking mouth have all but handed them his political a** on a platter" [
Nina Illingworth ]. Maybe Nina will "untangle" this in a later post.
The headline: "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians:
sources" [
Reuters ]. The body: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen
no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed
so far." Ah, the sources are "people." Excellent. We're making real progress, here. I mean, at
least they aren't dinosaurs or space aliens.
UPDATE "The Media Elite Is Indulging Dangerous Fantasies About Removing Trump From Office"
[
The Federalist ]. I don't often agree with the Federalist, but I think this is a good perspective.
"The country is deeply divided. People have taken to attacking each other in the streets and threatening
congressmen when they venture outside Washington. We're still recovering from a presidential election
that actually ended marriages and tore families apart. Trump's election was, more than anything
else, a giant middle finger to the political establishment, which has lost the confidence of the
American people. If now seems like the right time for that establishment to launch an unconstitutional
coup to remove the president through a specious application of the 25th Amendment, then I respectfully
submit that you're underestimating the precariousness of national life at this moment." Another
way of thinking about this: Who, exactly, makes the case to the American people? That somebody
would have to be an elected official trusted by the great majority of the American people (and
most definitely not a gaggle of long-faced politicians sitting at a big table). Who would that
somebody be? Paul Ryan? Joe Lieberman? Jimmy Carter? Oprah? Walter Cronkite is dead. So is Mr.
Rogers. So who, exactly?
Some general?
Which?
"Leakers From the Deep State Need to Face Criminal Charges" [
FOX News ] and "Kucinich: 'Deep State' Trying to 'Destroy The Trump Presidency'" [
FOX News ]. I juxtapose these to show the vacuity of the term "deep state." Can you imagine
FOX saying "ruling class" or "factional conflicts in the ruling class"? No?
Paul Ryan shows zero interest in investigating whether Trump obstructed justice or is in bed with
the Russian government. Why? He needs to get these massive tax cuts for the 1% and take away from
the "moochers" first.
Demonization of Russia that people like PGL enjoy is not a policy. This is an attempt to create
an alibi for Hillary fiasco.
And as any witch hunt this is an obstacle to thinking rationally, of having a rational discourse
about proper role of Russia in enhancing American national security.
Which of cause is impossible with imperial pretension of Washington neocons.
In any case Clinton's attempt to colonize Russia failed and after Yugoslavia war the USA neocons
are responsible for the deteriorating relations.
Taking into account complexity of modern weapon systems and the fact the USA has just 30 min
and Russia 10-15 min for reacting to any emerging threat of rocket attack, my impression is that
Washington is full of psychopaths, who enjoy walking on the blade edge. Kind of self-selection.
Public is so successfully brainwashed that even mentioning the fact that Putin probably does
not vivisect kittens provokes a strong negative reaction.
Invoking Goodwin law there were already a country with the population brainwashed to the same
extent.
Hey this is blasphemous non-sense! Putin vivisects kittens for pleasure! We aren't supposed to think
rationally about any of this. One of the foremost experts on Russia, Princeton's Stephen F. Cohen is
rarely heard in the U.S. because the corporate media isn't interested in the truth or rationality. There
is always some narrative of the deep state that needs to be perpetuated.
Notable quotes:
"... Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord , a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia. ..."
"... Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. ..."
"... Even Henry Kissinger - I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post ..."
"... And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there. ..."
"... Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ... ..."
"... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed. ... ..."
Last week I had the honor of interviewing Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies
and Politics at NYU and Princeton University, where for many years he was director of its Russian
Studies program. Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most
important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the
American Committee for East-West Accord
, a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia.
Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will
rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views,
and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S.
politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants
as Adolf Hitler. As Cohen explains:
Even Henry Kissinger - I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post - wrote
this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy."
And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because
it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational
discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine
and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin
that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.
And Cohen reminds us that, quite contrary to the common, manufactured perception in this country,
we have a very willing and capable potential partner in Moscow right now. As Cohen explains, "Bill
Clinton said this not too long ago: To the extent that he knew and dealt with Putin directly, he
never knew him to say anything that he, Putin, didn't mean, or ever to go back on his word or break
a promise he made to Clinton."
What's more, as Cohen reminds us, when the 9/11 attacks happened, Putin was the very first international
leader to offer help to President Bush:
Putin called George Bush after 9/11 and said, "George, we're with you, whatever we can do,"
and in fact did more to help the Americans fight a land war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban
from Kabul. ... Russia still had a lot of assets in Afghanistan, including a fighting force called
the Northern Alliance. It had probably better intelligence in and about Afghanistan than any country,
and it had air-route transport for American forces to fight in Afghanistan. He gave all this -
Putin gave all this - to the Bush administration. Putin's Kremlin, not a member of NATO, did more
to help the American land war and save American lives, therefore, in Afghanistan, than any NATO
country.
However, as Cohen explains, Bush strangely repaid Putin by (1) unilaterally withdrawing from the
anti-ballistic (ABM) treaty, the "bedrock" of Russia's national security, and (2) launching the second
wave of NATO expansion toward Russia.
And, as Cohen points out, this was not the only case in which the U.S. quite brazenly betrayed
Russia in recent decades. Thus he notes that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all violated
the very clear agreement that, in return for Gorbachev's allowing the reunification of Germany, the
U.S. would not move NATO one inch further east. In addition, the U.S. undermined then-President Medvedev
(who we claim to prefer to Putin) by unseating Gaddafi in Libya - with disastrous consequences -
despite our promise to Russia that we would do no such thing if Russia agreed to the Security Council
resolution approving the no-fly zone over Libya.
All of this history must be considered when we view the current crisis in Ukraine, which, Cohen
warns, is quickly leading to a hot war with Russia. As Cohen relates:
If you took even the short time frame of the Ukrainian crisis and you began it in November
2013, when the then-elected president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, didn't actually refuse to sign the
European Union's offer of a partnership with Europe. He asked for time to think about it. That
brought the protesters in the streets. That led to the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych, which,
by the way, Poroshenko, the current president, strangely now admits was illegal. ...
Then comes Putin's annexation or reunification of Crimea, as Russians call it. Then already
evolving now in Eastern Ukraine are protests against what's happening in Kiev, because Eastern
Ukraine was the electoral base of Yanukovych. Yanukovych was its president in a fundamental way.
Then comes the proxy war, with Russia helping the rebel fighters in Eastern Ukraine and the United
States and NATO helping the military forces of Kiev. ...
And so it went, on and on. Now, if you back up and ask who began the aggression, it's my argument
- for which I'm called a "Putin apologist," which I am not - ... but the reality is that Putin
has been mostly reactive. Let me say that again: reactive. If we had the time, I could explain
to you why the reportedly benign European Union offer to Kiev in 2013 was not benign at all. No
Ukrainian who wanted to survive could have accepted that. And by the way, it had clauses buried
below that would've obliged Kiev to adhere to NATO military security policy. ...
Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public
record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev,
which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea
and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against
the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ...
This was clearly meant to be a war of destruction. ... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its
military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians
will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have
been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed.
...
But this notion that this is all Putin's aggression, or Russia's aggression, is, if not 100-percent
false, let us say, for the sake of being balanced and ecumenical, it's 50-percent false. And if
Washington would admit that its narrative is 50-percent false, which means Russia's narrative
is 50-percent correct, that's where negotiations begin and succeed.
I can only hope that the policy makers in this country will hear the voices of people like Professor
Cohen and enter into rational negotiations with Russia in order that we may be spared what is shaping
up to be a disastrous war in Europe.
But underlying all of this, and all the furor, is a fundamental assumption.
It's a term that's used constantly in the media and by the various political pundits on the
media, which is "Russia is our adversary." You have to basically assume that
the adversary, Russia, has an antagonistic relationship with the United States, and then underneath
all of that, then you have Flynn and Comey investigation and so on. Because if Russia isn't
the great adversary, then it's unlikely there'd be such a to-do about all of this.
You know your opponent is a great master when you realize no one on this side is addressing
that assumption.
The bystanders, like us, are all too busy trying to find out if Trump didn't do this or he
did do that.
We survived the original cold war (just barely and by chance – go ahead and look up how many
times we came within a gnat's eyelash of global Armageddon) w don't need another one. The Washington
DC elite have gone so far round the bend that General Jack D. Ripper looks calm, sane and trustworthy
by comparison.
Chauncey Gardiner
Thanks for this informative interview with Robert English. I too share the view that a significant
opportunity was squandered in the early to mid-1990s to build a constructive relationship with
Russia, with the key actors mostly those who were unable to put the Cold War behind them, and
who used the opportunity to debilitate Russia economically and expand U.S. power globally; as
well as US and Western European financial and economic interests to a more limited extent.
That the Trump administration is attempting to move the needle toward a more constructive geopolitical
and economic relationship with Russia is a positive development IMO, as I agree with Trump that
U.S. and Russian geopolitical, economic and environmental interests are often aligned, albeit
not always. However, I remain concerned about global organized crime, oligarchic political and
economic control, corruption and impairment of civil liberties, issues which transcend national
boundaries and are not unique to Russia; and those politicians and their sponsors in the U.S.
who are seeking expanded military conflict.
I view the conversation reflected in this interview on two levels: Those predominantly interested
in preserving (the perception of) U.S. global hegemony, and those primarily seeking to disempower
and replace Trump as president, although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive groups. In
any event, there is little question who presently has the media megaphone. It has been educational
to see how pervasive their narrative can be.
"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does
not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.
For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally
Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what
astonished me was how quickly the media
interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving
Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even
illegal.
When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the
86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging
that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals
and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods"
or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely
a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."
The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post
exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too
far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was
actually revealed. The Post describes how
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so
sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision
to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.
The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more
dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump,
the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming
that the Russians might have sought to sneak
a recording device into the White House during the visit.
No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting,
have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster
described the report as "false" and
informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation.
At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known
publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods,
or military operations."
So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That
is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able
on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What
is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor
by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential
damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.
The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called
Special Access Program
, or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special
protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to
specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours
tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.
There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place.
Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to
disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of
urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.
Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence
service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence
did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at
all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story,
initially
stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.
The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information
was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection
may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison
relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret.
It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing
with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a
bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
This article has been updated to reflect news developments.
" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East
"
On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status
quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness
to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony,
about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation
Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?
Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt
they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.
I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky
waters is important to having an effective agency.
Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.
I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way.
I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in
an appropriate manner.
I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.
I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other
states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office,
I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.
Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies,
and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous
executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary
risks.
Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will
make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy
objective that remains a dead end.
__________
And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for
the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that
there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that
information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are
both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other
date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia
is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.
What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information
that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner
in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because
if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline
security.
But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates
of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .
Good greif . . .
Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate
the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no
success in infiltrating ISIS.
You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria
or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such
efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and
Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that
the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting
them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective
intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send
them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been
made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."
You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much
hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will
almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that
he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would
make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."
Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source
for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you
say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia]
would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."
Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular'
information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify
the actual source, with devastating consequences."
But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach."
Indeed!
You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House"
– even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York
Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important
intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."
That is, again, pure speculation on your part.
One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of
information – and the sources of dis-information.
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the
Deep State is leaking the proof.
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence
to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence.
The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and
our allies to trust the US less.
"... Whether Russia was involved in the US elections or not, is a matter of pure speculation. But speculation is not sufficient grounds for appointing a special prosecutor, nor are the lies and misinformation that appear daily in our leading newspapers, like the dissembling New York Times, the dissembling Washington Post and the dissembling Wall Street Journal. The call for a special prosecutor is not based on evidence, it is based on politics, the politics of personal destruction. ..."
"... And that's precisely what the special prosecutor provision is designed to do; it provides the administration's rivals with the weapons they need to conduct a massive fishing expedition aimed at character assassination and, ultimately, impeachment. ..."
"... Donald Trump had the audacity to win an election that was earmarked for establishment favorite and globalist warmonger-in-chief, Hillary Clinton. That's what this witch hunt is all about, sour grapes. ..."
"... But why has Russia been chosen as the target in this deep state-media scam? What has Russia done to deserve all the negative press and unsupported claims of criminal meddling? ..."
"... That's easy. Just look at a map. For the last 16 years, the US has been rampaging across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington intends to control critical oil and natural gas reserves in the ME, establish military bases across Central Asia, and remain the dominant player in an area of that is set to become the most populous and prosperous region of the world. It's the Great Game all over again, only this time-around, Uncle Sam is in the drivers seat not the Queen of England. But one country has upset that plan, blocked that plan, derailed that plan. Russia. ..."
"... For the last quarter of a century– since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union– the world has been Washington's oyster. If the president of the United States wanted to invade a country in the Middle East, kill a million people, and leave the place in a smoldering pile of rubble, then who could stop him? Nobody. But now that's all changed. Now evil Putin has thrown up a roadblock to US hegemony in Syria and Ukraine. Now Washington's landbridge to Central Asia has been split in two, and its plan to control vital pipeline corridors from Qatar to the EU is no longer viable. Russia has stopped Washington dead-in-its tracks and Washington is furious. ..."
"... The anti-Russia hysteria in the western media is equal to the pain the US foreign policy establishment is currently experiencing. And the reason the foreign policy establishment is in so much pain, is because they are not getting their way. It's that simple. Their global strategy is in a shambles because Russia will not let them topple the Syrian government, install their own puppet regime, redraw the map of the Middle East, run roughshod over international law, and tighten their grip on another battered war-torn part of the world. ..."
"... So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught to hate Russia and all-things Russian. ..."
"... Russia has become the all-purpose punching bag because Washington's plans for global domination have gone up in smoke. ..."
There's no proof that Russia hacked the US elections. There's no proof that Russian officials
or Russian agents colluded with members of the Trump campaign.
There's no proof that Russia provided material support of any kind for the Trump campaign or that
Russian agents hacked Hillary Clinton's emails or that Russian officials provided Wikileaks with
emails that were intended to sabotage Hillary's chances to win the election.
So far, no one in any of the 17 US intelligence agencies has stepped forward and verified the
claims of Russian meddling or produced a scintilla of hard evidence that Russia was in anyway involved
in the 2016 elections.
No proof means no proof. It means that the people and organizations that are making these uncorroborated
claims have no basis for legal action, no presumption of wrongdoing, and no grounds for prosecution.
They have nothing. Zilch. Their claims, charges and accusations are like the soap bubbles we give
to our children and grandchildren. The brightly-colored bubbles wobble across the sky for a minute
or two and then, Poof, they vanish into the ether. The claims of Russia hacking are like these bubbles.
They are empty, unsubstantiated rumors completely devoid of substance. Poof.
It has been eight months since the inception of this unprecedentedly-pathetic and infinitely-irritating
propaganda campaign, and in those eight months neither the media nor the politicos nor the Intel
agents who claim to be certain that Russia meddled in US elections, have produced anything that even
remotely resembles evidence. Instead, they have trotted out the same lie over and over again ad nauseam
from every newspaper, every tabloid and every televised news program in the country. Over and over
and over again. The media's persistence is nearly as impressive as its cynicism, which is the one
quality that they seem to have mastered. The coverage has been relentless, ubiquitous, pernicious
and mendacious. The only problem is that there's not a grain of truth to any of it. It is all 100
percent, unalloyed baloney.
So it doesn't matter how many Democratic senators and congressmen disgrace themselves by lighting
their hair on fire and howling about "evil Putin" or the imaginary "threats to our precious democracy".
Nor does it matter how many hyperbolic articles appear in media alleging sinister activities and
espionage by diabolical Moscow Central. It doesn't matter because there is have absolutely zero solid
evidence to support their ludicrous and entirely politically-motivated claims.
Whether Russia was involved in the US elections or not, is a matter of pure speculation. But
speculation is not sufficient grounds for appointing a special prosecutor, nor are the lies and misinformation
that appear daily in our leading newspapers, like the dissembling New York Times, the dissembling
Washington Post and the dissembling Wall Street Journal. The call for a special prosecutor is not
based on evidence, it is based on politics, the politics of personal destruction. The Democrats
and the media want this tool so they can rummage through whatever private information or paperwork
anyone in the Trump administration might possess. So while they might not dig up anything relevant
to the Russia hacking investigation, they will certainly gather enough sordid or suspicious information
to annihilate the people in their crosshairs. And that's precisely what the special prosecutor
provision is designed to do; it provides the administration's rivals with the weapons they need to
conduct a massive fishing expedition aimed at character assassination and, ultimately, impeachment.
But, why?
Because Donald Trump had the audacity to win an election that was earmarked for establishment
favorite and globalist warmonger-in-chief, Hillary Clinton. That's what this witch hunt is all about,
sour grapes.
But why has Russia been chosen as the target in this deep state-media scam? What has Russia
done to deserve all the negative press and unsupported claims of criminal meddling?
That's easy. Just look at a map. For the last 16 years, the US has been rampaging across North
Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington intends to control critical oil and natural
gas reserves in the ME, establish military bases across Central Asia, and remain the dominant player
in an area of that is set to become the most populous and prosperous region of the world. It's the
Great Game all over again, only this time-around, Uncle Sam is in the drivers seat not the Queen
of England. But one country has upset that plan, blocked that plan, derailed that plan. Russia.
Russia has stopped Washington's murderous marauding and genocidal depredations in Ukraine and
Syria, which is why the US foreign policy establishment is so pissed-off. US elites aren't used to
obstacles.
For the last quarter of a century– since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of
the Soviet Union– the world has been Washington's oyster. If the president of the United States wanted
to invade a country in the Middle East, kill a million people, and leave the place in a smoldering
pile of rubble, then who could stop him? Nobody. But now that's all changed. Now evil Putin has thrown
up a roadblock to US hegemony in Syria and Ukraine. Now Washington's landbridge to Central Asia has
been split in two, and its plan to control vital pipeline corridors from Qatar to the EU is no longer
viable. Russia has stopped Washington dead-in-its tracks and Washington is furious.
The anti-Russia hysteria in the western media is equal to the pain the US foreign policy establishment
is currently experiencing. And the reason the foreign policy establishment is in so much pain, is
because they are not getting their way. It's that simple. Their global strategy is in a shambles
because Russia will not let them topple the Syrian government, install their own puppet regime, redraw
the map of the Middle East, run roughshod over international law, and tighten their grip on another
battered war-torn part of the world.
So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught
to hate Russia and all-things Russian. And, most of all, Russia must be blamed for anything and everything
under the sun, including the firing of police-state Reichsführer, James Comey, who -- at various times
in his career -- "approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration .including
torture , warrantless wiretapping,
and indefinite detention." (ACLU)
This is the ethically-challenged scalawag the Democrats are now defending tooth in nail. It's pathetic.
Russia has become the all-purpose punching bag because Washington's plans for global domination
have gone up in smoke. The truth is, Putin's done us all a big favor.
"The War Party is determined to make the offensive permanent, to keep up the pressure on the ultimate
targets, Russia and China, until they break or capitulate to U.S. domination of the world. The
current, rabid anti-Russian hysteria adds another layer of fake news on top of the wholly fictional
U.S. "War on Terror" scenario. But these mega-lies can no longer mask the great obscenity of the
21st century: that the U.S. is allied with al-Qaida, whose jihadists act as imperialism's foot
soldiers in the Middle East."
Absolute take down of the psycho shtstains in Brussels and Washington DC
They don't have to, look at the language: "Russia acted to influence"
It doesn't say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence. Did RT broadcast
something election related? Did some funds come from Russia? If so, Russia acted to influence
the election. As did France. As did the UK. As did any major power.
"Asked whether they believed" – again they don't have to prove that it happened. They have
to show that they believed it happened.
"WASHINGTON DC: Six top US intelligence officials told Congress Thursday they agree with the conclusion
that Russia acted to influence last year's election, countering President Donald Trump's assertions
that the hacking remains an open question."
"Asked whether they believed the intelligence community's January assessment that Russia was
responsible for hacking and leaking information to influence the elections was accurate, all six
spy and law enforcement bosses appearing before the panel said "yes."
Trump's firing of FBI director 'domestic matter': Kremlin'"
Demand these vermin proffer PROOF that Russia F'd with the 2016 election..
Then Fire every last one of these cckskkers..declare martial law if necessary
They don't have to, look at the language: "Russia acted to influence"
It doesn't say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence. Did RT broadcast
something election related? Did some funds come from Russia? If so, Russia acted to influence
the election. As did France. As did the UK. As did any major power.
"Asked whether they believed" – again they don't have to prove that it happened. They have
to show that they believed it happened.
The article , written by Farhad Manjoo, is titled "Can Facebook Fix Its Own Worst Bug?" and poses the question: "Mark Zuckerberg
now acknowledges the dangerous side of the social revolution he helped start. But is the most powerful tool for connection in human
history capable of adapting to the world it created?"
The article discusses the mood in Silicon Valley days before Donald Trump's inauguration, describing the general mood as "grim."
But Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was reportedly quite positive about the future, describing 2016 as an "interesting year for
us [Facebook]."
The article later describes Silicon Valley's detachment from real world events, saying, "In Silicon Valley, current events tend
to fade into the background. The Sept. 11 attacks, the Iraq war, the financial crisis and every recent presidential election occurred,
for the tech industry, on some parallel but distant timeline divorced from the everyday business of digitizing the world."
But the election of Donald Trump caused many in Silicon Valley to suddenly take notice of the political world, "Then Donald Trump
won. In the 17 years I've spent covering Silicon Valley, I've never seen anything shake the place like his victory," Manjoo writes.
"In the span of a few months, the Valley has been transformed from a politically disengaged company town into a center of anti-Trump
resistance and fear."
"A week after the election, one start-up founder sent me a private message on Twitter: 'I think it's worse than I thought,' he
wrote. 'Originally I thought 18 months. I've cut that in half,'" Manjoo recalls. "Until what? 'Apocalypse. End of the world.'"
The description of Silicon Valley as the "center of anti-Trump resistance" is unsurprising, Google employees and executives
previously held rallies at Google offices across the United States in protest of President Trump's temporary travel halt from
nations associated with terrorism.
"... I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass. ..."
"... My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world. ..."
"... The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast. ..."
"... When these vile cretins get their war with Russia, it just won't matter how many lies they told to get there. The NYT is merely one small facet of the industrial lie-machine known as Zion, for lack of a more modern term. Their job was always to lie, but not of their own volition. ..."
"... The decline in standards in the NYT this year has been astonishing. It is often impossible to tell if an article is in the NYT or clickbait Huffington Post if you are just offered a headline. ..."
"... Alex Gibnev happened to be a person of easy virtues, similar to his brother-in-lies Luke Harding. ..."
Early this year, aggravated by the majority of the content, especially the opinion columns,
I canceled delivery of and my on-line access to the New York Times.
Both articles and opinions seemed to always emphasize racial discord (despite the presence
of millions of Hispanics and Asians everything was always portrayed as "black and white"), an
inflated concern for Muslim sensitivities ("anti-Islamaphobia"), and "immigration" (and they always
called illegal aliens "undocumented" immigrants and had all of these stories about families where
a parent "migrated" years ago, left behind children who "migrated" separately years later, had
a spouse who also "migrated" subsequently, and now had American born (citizen) children, so how
could anyone now be penalized or deported.
Not that I expected my words to have any impact, but my letter of cancellation included the
below:
Is there any economic inequity or disparity that the NY Times does not attribute to racism?
Even when Blacks or Latinos are "disproportionately" affected, why the seemingly immediate jump
to the conclusion that racism is responsible for the numbers or the motivation for the supposed
"exploitation?" Why not report on the economic inequity as an economic rather than a racial issue?
Whatever the racial percentages, economic inequity and "exploitation" ultimately affects poor
and working class people of all races. Why does the NY Times almost always describe social and
economic disparities as a racial rather than an economic issue? Always emphasizing who suffers
by race rather than by economic standing (class) is a strategy that clearly divides rather than
unites. The NY Times seems to have adopted the (unacknowledged) motto "All The News That Is Fit
To Be Racialized." Agree:
Miro23
Didn't the NYSlimes print Al Sharpton's garbage about the false Twana Brawley accusations
as though the fraud were the truth? It was a horrible witch hunt against several White men
My first memory of the Slimes was an adulatory article about Castro right after he took over
Cuba. He was going to create paradise in the Carribean. Didn't work out that way.
If we lived in a sane world and not one run by lawless sociopaths, the Times owners and editors
would be indicted and stand trial for their aiding and abetting war crimes in Iraq, Libya and
Syria.
Every morning, I skim the headlines of the New Joke Times for my daily dose of humor. The
only articles I bother clicking on these days – as with the BBC – appear in the Sports section.
The recent profile on Kyrgios was amusing.
- It is unfortunate that the NYT and especially, the BBC are still taken quite seriously in the
developing world.
I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used
to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO,
CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed,
if I notice their bylines, I pass.
My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the
Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even
if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they
have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.
Has this always been the case or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important
for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the
years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We
also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space
on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about
balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.
Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already
disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing
to learn from the MSM.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other
great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of
discretion for almost forty years.
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected
to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared
to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and
world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
– David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany.
"during the current election cycle in the United States, The New York Times has so clearly
abandoned all rudimentary standards of journalism and alienated its readership so badly, that
it has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance."
Actually, it abandoned all that a very long time ago, but better to notice late then never,
I suppose.
For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian,
the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.
That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but
there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.
One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical
comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself
(although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space"
type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian)
or very heavily censored (New York Times – apparently).
That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called
leading online publications.
The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but
is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece
of journalism kicks off 100′s of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and
abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes
get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.
Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can
handle comments fast running into the 1000′s. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average
of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political
spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic
interest, public involvement and social experience – basically a good party.
Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness
that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light,
and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.
The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting
system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish)
it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.
Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive
proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication).
Of course, the NYT would have disappeared already if it weren't for cash infusions from Mexican
criminal (and World's riches man) Carlos Slim, in return for relentlessly defending the "right"
of Mexicans to enter the US illegally and remit cash (untaxed) back to the home country.
Alden
,
September 14, 2016 at 5:07 pm GMT \n
Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important
for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the
years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We
also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space
on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about
balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.
Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already
disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing
to learn from the MSM. I'm a bit older than you are. I learned how the newspapers lie and lie
back in 1966. My city, San Francisco had a black riot ostensibly because a cop shot a stick up
man.
The local papers were totally in favor of the rioters and against the police. That is when I stopped
believing in anything published in a newspaper or "quality" magazine like Atlantic, New Republic
Harper's etc.
I soon went to work for a government agency that was under siege by federally funded radical
non profits. I saw that everything published about my agency was a total lie. I also had a friend
who was a reporter for the major newspaper in those days. He told me that reporters don't really
investigate and write the stories. They just re write handouts from liberal or people
Of course I am White. From 1960 on the "quality" newspapers and magazines have been solidly
anti White. I realized that just out of college.
The Los Angeles Slimes actually instigated and then justified the Rodney King riots. The Slimes
blamed everybody but the black dreck for the riot, especially the police The Wave newspapers are
a chain of local community newspapers in the southern Suburbs of Los Angeles. They were mostly
black at the time of the Rodney King riots. The Wave papers were a lot more pro police and anti
black rioters than the Times.
How can Whites read the news papers all their lives and not notice that the newspapers totally
hate Whites?
I haven't seen a NYT newspaper in decades. I know the NYT has a presence on the Internet,
but last I checked (years ago) their archives (the only thing the NYT retains of value) are membership
only. The NYT might still be a valuable record of historical events that occurred generations
past, but most everything I'm looking for has already been extracted and is publicly available
elsewhere. It's simply easier to do a Google search than find it on the NYT website (only to discover
that to view it requires a subscription). If the link has a NYT in it, I go on to the next.
When it comes to contemporary news, the last place I would look is the NYT. If I want to hear
official lies for myself, then cable TV is the only possible source. The 24/7 news cycle can be
recorded and the misstatements extracted later. A few hours later and the news has been purged
of the offense, all references removed or left dangling. The NYT is simply not useful to catch
glimpses of real events as they happen.
Finally, when it comes to analysis the NYT has, as you say, deliberately made itself more and
more irrelevant. Commentary and analysis is a dime a dozen on the Internet, and almost all of
it is of a higher quality than what the NYT prints. The NYT attacks only official enemies, and
maintains a passionless hands-off attitude towards the crimes of their powerful allies. Now, why
would I bother to read that? My time is valuable and the Internet is full of insightful analysis.
Life is too short to read propaganda.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great
publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion
for almost forty years.
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected
to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared
to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past
centuries."
-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany.
nice post. thanks.
i read a long article on the council of foreign relations that would interest you about 3 weeks
ago. for the life of me, i can't remember the author or even the site. but, it definitely isn't
a fringe site or a pajama blogger.
i believe the group was established in the 1920′s. the piece stated that every ex-secretary
of state, and all but one ex-secretary of defense has joined since the organization's founding.
the council on foreign relations is also a proponent of a new world order. i suppose, the trilateral
commission is too. megalomaniacs are always with us. but attempting to manipulate & control
a world population is akin to herding cats. but these three nwo groups have influence.
Nicely done. The NY Times was once regarded as America's premier News Outlet. It, was
never pristine, but one could squeeze some facts out of its pages.
Today, the Rag is excruciatingly Boring, (which is usually a by-product of propaganda organs).
The Wall Street Journal , and Washington Post , and thousands of other print
and informational medias, have declined into mind numbing and uninformative outlets.
It is one thing for a pretend Newspaper, such as the NYT to support imperialism, and
exploitation, and the rule of the Oligarchs; the NYT and the others have ever been that. But it
is another for them to become (decline into), mere propaganda outlets for Government controlling
Oligarchs.
Some say, "The truth will make us free." Unfortunately, the Truth is often, and lately, increasingly
Buried. It is the truth, our Liberties, that have received an Obituary. Orwell believed
that sad event happened in 1984 , or, certainly, by then. I believe the obituary began,
definitively, on November 22, 1963 , and expanded from there.
I wholeheartedly agree with the main argument of the NY Times having lost all vestiges of
journalistic integrity and ethical standards. They have ceased to be anything more than a combination;
mouthpiece, pr flak and investigative attack dogs for the extended Clinton crime family and their
friends on the left.
That said, it's hard to see this author's work to not be his response to the Times's articles
(which he includes here), which have criticized him.
Whether valid criticism or not, it obviously is the source of Johannes Wahlstrom 's venom and
it's impossible to not wonder how much of his subsequent tirade against the Times is a direct
result of that animus.
100 Words
@pyrrhus Of course, the NYT would have disappeared already if it weren't for cash infusions
from Mexican criminal (and World's riches man) Carlos Slim, in return for relentlessly defending
the "right" of Mexicans to enter the US illegally and remit cash (untaxed) back to the home country.
It's amazing what roles foreigners play in our national life. We seem to lap it up.
A digression on remittances: If we imposed a hefty tax on them I bet we'd see a whole lot of
self-deportation. Punitive taxation on our own citizens is perfectly OK, such as with cigarettes,
so there's no moral objection to collecting punitive income, Medicare, and employment taxes on
the back end.
Of course, the official position is that only Bureau of Prisons buses and RR cattle cars can
be used to deport people, who must be rounded up Evian Gonzalez-style.
@Miro23 For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian,
the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.
That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but
there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.
One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical
comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself
(although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space"
type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian)
or very heavily censored (New York Times - apparently).
That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called
leading online publications.
The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but
is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece
of journalism kicks off 100's of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and
abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes
get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.
Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can
handle comments fast running into the 1000's. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average
of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political
spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic
interest, public involvement and social experience - basically a good party.
Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness
that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light,
and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.
The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting
system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish)
it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.
Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive
proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication). You want to see serious heavy duty
censorship, try posting comments over at the aggressively anti-trump site "the american cuck .er
conservative". In between displaying saintly religiosity, they never fail to censor any comment
even remotely pro trump or anti jooie hooey ..all with a patina of intellectual superiority. One
of them even works at a food bank handing out cans of crap to 300 lb starving afros and white
trash in some third world pisshole called Louisiana.
In the final stage, the gray lady is turning tricks for the .gov, and she'll do anything to
survive. It's like Hillary at the 911 memorial, they're all desperately trying to keep her alive
because she 's TBTF. dmaak112
,
September 14, 2016 at 8:29 pm GMT \n
The New York Times practices censorship of opinions that run contrary to their position. I
had subscribed to their on-line edition. The paper would permit comments on some of the articles
and opinion pieces. You're are limited to 1500 characters plus spaces.
For a while, my comments were shown alongside others. Then, this September, I found that I
could not make comments or even access previous comments. They had cut me off completely. I contacted
them and was told that my access had suffered a glitch. They were working on it.
I checked and saw that others were still able to comment and access this feature. But not me.
I believe that the paper deliberately cut me off because I challenged their stories and analysis.
I could not believe that they so wanted to control the story that they would ensure that contrary
opinions would not appear.
I have ended my subscription. For all the talk of freedom of expression, it only applies if
you follow the line they set.
When these vile cretins get their war with Russia, it just won't matter how many lies
they told to get there. The NYT is merely one small facet of the industrial lie-machine known
as Zion, for lack of a more modern term. Their job was always to lie, but not of their own volition.
They've followed their mission-plan well. Now the BIG action is with the Mossad boys to implement
the war the NYT has so feverishly set up.
But, like a bad script waiting for the Production Dept. to catch up, they've run their course,
in more ways than their tiny brains can even imagine.
200 Words NYT is now part of the U.S. Regime Media.
The biggest story that Regime Media has failed to report is this, 'the U.S. govt is supporting
Al Qaeda aligned rebels in Syria against the Assad govt'. This has been true since at least 2013
and likely true since 2012 yet it has never been reported.
Instead, Regime Media has merely repeated the position of the U.S. State Dept. without any
challenge whatsoever. What happened to the press that was suspicious of the govt narrative that
existed during the Vietnam War? It evaporated in Iraq 2002 and is now just a mouthpiece of the
govt. Sources exist other than the U.S. State Dept. Anyone who pays attention can easily see where
our narrative falls apart.
I won't go into details over all of the false narratives. I chose the most important example.
If I sound bitter, it is because I am.
DISGUSTING -- Its becoming very obvious that the so called "mainstream" media is, IN
FACT, protecting this or that Agenda ..NO WONDER people are turning to alternative media for RELYABLE
information ..WHAT DISGUSTING PIECES OF SHIT -- The New York Time is part of TIME MAgazine? I am
subscriber, I can tell you know .I WAS a subscriber .FUCK THEM !!
Mike1
,
September 14, 2016 at 9:19 pm GMT \n
The decline in standards in the NYT this year has been astonishing. It is often impossible
to tell if an article is in the NYT or clickbait Huffington Post if you are just offered a headline.
Facts used have gone from being massaged to being outright false. What is weirder is that they
don't care if what they are saying is provably false.
Tim
Rupright ,
September 14, 2016 at 9:50 pm GMT \n
@TheJester I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West.
I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT,
WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed,
if I notice their bylines, I pass.
My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets
plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you
favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have
no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.
Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important
for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the
years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We
also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space
on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about
balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.
Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already
disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing
to learn from the MSM. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post (and other newspapers) were certainly
in the pocket of FDR and the pro-war intelligence services of both the US and of Britain since
at least the late 1930s. They happily slandered any and all isolationists and planted false stories
to manipulate the public just as they have done for the intervening 75 years. They are and have
been for decades little more than a mouthpiece for the ruling elite. Let us hope this election
finishes them off.
@CCZ Early this year, aggravated by the majority of the content, especially the opinion columns,
I canceled delivery of and my on-line access to the New York Times.
Both articles and opinions seemed to always emphasize racial discord (despite the presence of
millions of Hispanics and Asians everything was always portrayed as "black and white"), an inflated
concern for Muslim sensitivities ("anti-Islamaphobia"), and "immigration" (and they always called
illegal aliens "undocumented" immigrants and had all of these stories about families where a parent
"migrated" years ago, left behind children who "migrated" separately years later, had a spouse
who also "migrated" subsequently, and now had American born (citizen) children, so how could anyone
now be penalized or deported.
Not that I expected my words to have any impact, but my letter of cancellation included the below:
Is there any economic inequity or disparity that the NY Times does not attribute to racism? Even
when Blacks or Latinos are "disproportionately" affected, why the seemingly immediate jump to
the conclusion that racism is responsible for the numbers or the motivation for the supposed "exploitation?"
Why not report on the economic inequity as an economic rather than a racial issue? Whatever the
racial percentages, economic inequity and "exploitation" ultimately affects poor and working class
people of all races. Why does the NY Times almost always describe social and economic disparities
as a racial rather than an economic issue? Always emphasizing who suffers by race rather than
by economic standing (class) is a strategy that clearly divides rather than unites. The NY Times
seems to have adopted the (unacknowledged) motto "All The News That Is Fit To Be Racialized."
Check out the ~5x increase in the prevalence of the word "racism" in NYT articles between 2011
and 2016:
@Alden I'm a bit older than you are. I learned how the newspapers lie and lie back in 1966.
My city, San Francisco had a black riot ostensibly because a cop shot a stick up man.
The local papers were totally in favor of the rioters and against the police. That is when I stopped
believing in anything published in a newspaper or "quality" magazine like Atlantic, New Republic
Harper's etc.
I soon went to work for a government agency that was under siege by federally funded radical non
profits. I saw that everything published about my agency was a total lie. I also had a friend
who was a reporter for the major newspaper in those days. He told me that reporters don't really
investigate and write the stories. They just re write handouts from liberal or people
Of course I am White. From 1960 on the "quality" newspapers and magazines have been solidly anti
White. I realized that just out of college.
The Los Angeles Slimes actually instigated and then justified the Rodney King riots. The Slimes
blamed everybody but the black dreck for the riot, especially the police The Wave newspapers are
a chain of local community newspapers in the southern Suburbs of Los Angeles. They were mostly
black at the time of the Rodney King riots. The Wave papers were a lot more pro police and anti
black rioters than the Times.
How can Whites read the news papers all their lives and not notice that the newspapers totally
hate Whites? The fact that the mainstream media by and large hates whites is one of the main things
about it that appeals to the whites on the left. annamaria
,
September 15, 2016 at 1:28 am GMT \n
@TheJester I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West.
I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT,
WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed,
if I notice their bylines, I pass.
My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets
plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you
favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have
no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.
Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important
for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the
years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We
also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space
on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about
balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.
Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already
disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing
to learn from the MSM. " a text by Alex Gibney: "Johannes Wahlstrom, a Swedish journalist who
helped to engineer a vilification campaign against the two women who accused Mr. Assange of sexual
assaults"
Alex Gibnev happened to be a person of easy virtues, similar to his brother-in-lies Luke
Harding.
@dmaak112 The New York Times practices censorship of opinions that run contrary to their position.
I had subscribed to their on-line edition. The paper would permit comments on some of the articles
and opinion pieces. You're are limited to 1500 characters plus spaces. For a while, my comments
were shown alongside others. Then, this September, I found that I could not make comments or even
access previous comments. They had cut me off completely. I contacted them and was told that my
access had suffered a glitch. They were working on it.
I checked and saw that others were still able to comment and access this feature. But not me.
I believe that the paper deliberately cut me off because I challenged their stories and analysis.
I could not believe that they so wanted to control the story that they would ensure that contrary
opinions would not appear.
I have ended my subscription. For all the talk of freedom of expression, it only applies if
you follow the line they set. Why might they – or at least some quite junior staff – regard you
as important enough or your comments as powerful enough to engage in the censorship which they
appear to deny?
@Miro23 For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian,
the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.
That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but
there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.
One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical
comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself
(although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space"
type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian)
or very heavily censored (New York Times - apparently).
That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called
leading online publications.
The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but
is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece
of journalism kicks off 100's of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and
abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes
get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.
Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can
handle comments fast running into the 1000's. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average
of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political
spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic
interest, public involvement and social experience - basically a good party.
Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness
that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light,
and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.
The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting
system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish)
it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.
Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive
proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication). I really love the Unz commenting
system. The ability to follow a thread through linking, and to trace the history of any commenter,
is superb, best I have seen anywhere, and without the "indenting" that Mars other comment systems.
I give great credit to Unz for his somewhat open-sourced method of adding comments features.
In his next sentence he said, "Not only do words infect, egotize, narcotize, and paralyze,
but they enter into and colour the minutest cells of the brain ."
@TomSchmidt I really love the Unz commenting system. The ability to follow a thread through
linking, and to trace the history of any commenter, is superb, best I have seen anywhere, and
without the "indenting" that Mars other comment systems.
I give great credit to Unz for his somewhat open-sourced method of adding comments features. I
agree, the Unz commenting system just needed some getting used to after the WaPo system and Disqus.
It's very good. heymrguda
,
September 15, 2016 at 3:46 pm GMT \n
@nsa You want to see serious heavy duty censorship, try posting comments over at the aggressively
anti-trump site "the american cuck....er conservative". In between displaying saintly religiosity,
they never fail to censor any comment even remotely pro trump or anti jooie hooey.....all with
a patina of intellectual superiority. One of them even works at a food bank handing out cans of
crap to 300 lb starving afros and white trash in some third world pisshole called Louisiana. Yes,
I was (apparently) banned from commenting on that site for suggesting that several of their bloggers
(some regular contributors, some not) seemed to favor a certain religious denomination as Conservatism's
official religion. Didn't seem all that controversial to me. Hats off to Ron Unz for not censoring
comments. res
,
September 15, 2016 at 4:31 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@CCZ Interesting that the NY Times has a publicly accessible tool that allows one to graph
the newspaper's fixation on certain topics. I applied the term "transgender," those mostly men
(males) identifying as women and demanding access to previously women only spaces (bathrooms and
locker and shower rooms), and found an almost identical rocket ship rise in the newspaper's fixation
on transgenders beginning in 2010-2011 (parallel with and to almost the same extreme heights as
the words "racist" and "racism").
Given the downward trend of using the words racist and racism until the dramatic 5X up tick in
2011, that you noted, I wonder what explains the timing of the change.
Perhaps the NY Times owners' appointment of New Orleans born African-American / Creole / black
journalist Dean Baquet as Managing Editor in September 2011 and his promotion to Executive Editor
on May 14, 2014 signaled their intent to dramatically escalate the racial focus. Carlos Slim also
bought into the NY Times in 2008 and increased his holdings in 2012.
The on-line word tracing tool, Google N-Gram Viewer displays a similar dramatic recent rise in
the appearance of words like racism and racist and transgender in books. Like the Chronicle.NYTLABS
tool that you site, the N-Gram Viewer visually graphs the percent of books using selected words
or phrases over a selected time period from the 25 million books scanned and digitized by Google.
You can track the use of words in multiple languages from as early as 1700 up to 2009.
Found at: https://books.google.com/ngrams
Sadly, not just the NY Times has been racialized and transgenderized and social warriorized. Thanks
for the thoughtful reply. Transgender peaks below racism (as you noted), but the rise is much
more dramatic–thanks for pointing that one out.
Google N-Gram Viewer is great, but they don't seem to be updating it so it's less useful for
tracking changes since Obama became president.
Interesting thoughts about NYT changes as causes. I've tended to attribute the "racism" change
to Obama's second term and post-Trayvon (early 2012) incitement, but you might have a better explanation.
I wonder if the NYT articles database includes details like authors and section of the newspaper.
It would be fascinating to see a more detailed analysis of who/what section seem to be driving
the changes.
One fear I have is that publicizing these examples of NYT word frequency will cause the Chronicle
tool to disappear.
The New York Times has soiled its reputation long time ago. But to observe a vulgarization
of the previously respectful New Yorker is rather painful; the nest of intellectuals has become
a nest of opportunistic half-wits. The New Yorker' pandering to Clinton is beyond ridiculous.
jeremy
lansman ,
September 18, 2016 at 7:37 pm GMT \n
"As a Swedish reader of The New York Times, I may be surprised that the paper has ignored
election rigging in the governing party of the United States serious enough to cause its top five
officials to resign." Governing partey? Now, please explain. Is that the R which is in control
of the legislature, or the D in control of the WH? Not to defend the NYT, but I detect this writer
has an ax to grind, so has gone a bit overboard. This comment is not a news story. Just my opinion!
Anonymous ,
September 19, 2016 at 3:47 pm GMT \n
@Walter Alter The news media in the US, and probably the world, has evolved into a mouthpiece
for social engineering, feudal peasant ignorance, crowd control, the tyranny of political correctness,
ideological speculation and self-serving congratulatory adulation of globalist liberalism. Following
the dictates of the financier oligarchy, they have managed to successfully dash their hierarchical
brains against the modern technological imperative and its stepchild, the Internet and peer to
peer lateral communication.
Their ideologically propelled mischaracterizations of Hillary's chances
while the rest of us had mouse click access to the raw data, made it apparent EVEN TO THEMSELVES,
that they are as blind as a Daniel Quayle potatoe. You seem not to know that he didn't spell the
word wrong. Both versions are acceptable.
Nice ignorant recycling of a rather stupid and childish lefty trope from the late 80s / early
90s.
"... Prescott Bush and the Smedley Butler " Business Plot " Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America Nazis, he has praised
Hitler, he talked last night in ... ..."
I wonder why this is never mentioned in history classes in the US.
And I wonder why the US media has not frankly discussed what
happened. Is it because it would embarrass powerful figures still on the scene today?
I wonder why there is no frank discussion of the Wall Street interests who helped to finance the fascists in Europe, including
the National Socialists in Germany, even during the 1940's?
When the going gets tough, the moneyed interests seem to invariably reach for fascism to maintain the status quo.
We keep too many things hidden 'for the sake of the system.' This obsession with secrecy is all too often the cover to hide misdeeds,
incompetency, abuses of the system, and outright crimes.
If some things cannot bear the light of day, the chances are pretty good that they can remain a festering sore and a moral hazard
for the future.
Here is a BBC documentary about what had happened.
Mirrored from TheRapeOfJustice (exceptional channel for large library of relevant historical broadcasts and documentaries)
http://www.youtube.com/user ...
Prescott
Bush and the Smedley Butler "Business Plot" Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist
Coup In America Nazis, he has praised Hitler, he talked last night in ...
Whatever the truth about Trump and Russia,
the speculation surrounding it has become a dangerous case of mass hysteria
Michael
Flynn and Donald Trump
Credit:
John Locher/AP
So Michael Flynn, who was Donald Trump's national security
adviser before he got busted talking out of school to Russia's
ambassador, has reportedly
offered
to testify
in exchange for immunity.
For seemingly the 100th time, social media is exploding. This
is it! The big reveal!
Perhaps it will come off just the way people are expecting.
Perhaps Flynn will get a deal, walk into the House or the Senate
surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers, and unspool the whole sordid
conspiracy.
He will explain that Donald Trump, compromised by ancient
deals with Russian mobsters, and perhaps even blackmailed by an
unspeakable KGB sex tape, made a secret deal. He'll say Trump
agreed to downplay the obvious benefits of an armed
proxy
war in Ukraine with nuclear-armed Russia
in exchange for
Vladimir Putin's help in stealing the emails of Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz and John Podesta.
I personally would be surprised if this turned out to be the
narrative, mainly because we haven't seen any real evidence of
it. But episodes like the Flynn story have even the most careful
reporters paralyzed. What if, tomorrow, it all turns out to be
true?
What if reality does turn out to be a massive
connect-the-dots image of St. Basil's Cathedral sitting atop the
White House? (This was suddenly legitimate British conspiracist
Louise Mensch's
construction
in
The New York Times
last week.) What if all the
Glenn
Beck
-style
far-out
charts
with the
circles
and
arrows
somehow all make sense?
This is one of the tricks that keeps every good conspiracy
theory going. Nobody wants to be the one claiming the emperor
has no clothes the day His Highness walks out naked. And this
Russia thing has spun out of control into just such an exercise
of conspiratorial mass hysteria.
Even I think there should be a legitimate independent
investigation – one that, given Trump's history, might uncover
all sorts of things. But almost irrespective of what ends up
being uncovered on the Trump side, the public prosecution of
this affair has taken on a malevolent life of its own.
One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that
everyone who doesn't believe is accused of being in on the plot.
This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political
and media circles in recent weeks.
The aforementioned Mensch, a noted loon who thinks
Putin
murdered Andrew Breitbart
but has somehow been put front and
center by
The Times
and HBO's
Real Time
, has
denounced an extraordinary list of Kremlin plants.
She's tabbed everyone from Jeff Sessions ("a
Russian
partisan
") to Rudy Giuliani and former Assistant FBI
Director James Kallstrom ("
agents
of influence
") to Glenn Greenwald ("
Russian
shill
") to
ProPublica
and
Democracy Now!
(also
"
Russian
shills
"), to
the 15-year-old girl with whom Anthony
Weiner sexted (
really
,
she says, a Russian hacker group called "Crackas With
Attitudes") to an unnamed number of FBI agents in the New York
field office ("
moles
").
And that's just for starters.
Others are doing the same. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters,
upon seeing the strange behavior of Republican Intel Committee
chair Devin Nunes,
asked
"what kind of dossier" the Kremlin has on Nunes.
Dem-friendly pollster Matt McDermott
wondered
why reporters Michael Tracey and Zaid Jilani aren't on board
with the conspiracy stories (they might be "unwitting" agents!)
and
noted
,
without irony, that Russian bots mysteriously appear every time
he tweets negatively about them.
Think about that last one. Does McDermott think Tracey and
Jilani call their handlers at the sight of a scary Matt
McDermott tweet and have the FSB send waves of Russian bots at
him on command? Or does he think it's an automated process? What
goes through the heads of such people?
I've written a few articles on the Russia subject that have
been very tame, basically arguing that it might be a good idea
to wait for evidence of collusion before those of us in the
media jump in the story with both feet. But even I've gotten
the
treatment
.
I've been "outed" as a
possible
paid Putin plant
by the infamous "PropOrNot" group, which is
supposedly dedicated to rooting out Russian "agents of
influence." You might remember PropOrNot as the illustrious
research team the
Washington Post
once relied on for a
report that
accused
200 alternative websites
of being "routine peddlers of
Russian propaganda during the election season."
Politicians are getting into the act, too. It was one thing
when Rand Paul
balked
at OKing the expansion of NATO to Montenegro, and John McCain
didn't hesitate to say that "the senator from Kentucky is now
working for Vladimir Putin."
Even Bernie Sanders has himself been
accused
of being a Putin plant
by Mensch. But even he's gotten on
board of late,
asking
,
"What do the Russians have on Mr. Trump?"
So even people who themselves have been accused of being
Russian plants are now accusing people of being Russian plants.
As the Russians would say, it's enough to make your
bashka
hurt.
Sanders should know better. Last week, during hearings in the
Senate, multiple witnesses essentially pegged his electoral
following as unwitting fellow travelers for Putin.
Former NSA chief Keith Alexander
spoke
openly
of how Russia used the Sanders campaign to "drive a
wedge within the Democratic Party," while Dr. Thomas Rid of
Kings College in London spoke of Russia's use of "unwitting
agents" and "overeager journalists" to drive narratives that
destabilized American politics.
This testimony was brought out by Virginia Democrat Mark
Warner. Warner has been in full-blown "precious bodily fluids"
mode throughout this scandal. During an
interview
with
The
Times
on the Russia subject a
month back, there was a thud outside the window. "That may just
be the FSB," he said. The paper was unsure if he was kidding.
Warner furthermore told
The
Times
that in order
to get prepared for his role as an exposer of 21st-century
Russian perfidy,
he was "losing himself in a book about
the Romanovs," and had been quizzing staffers about "Tolstoy and
Nabokov."
This is how nuts things are now: a senator brushes up on
Nabokov and Tolstoy (
Tolstoy
!) to get pumped to expose
Vladimir Putin.
Even the bizarre admission by FBI director (and sudden
darling of the same Democrats who hated him months ago) James
Comey that he didn't know anything about Russia's biggest
company didn't seem to trouble Americans very much. Here's the
key
exchange
, from a House hearing in which Jackie Speier
quizzed Comey:
SPEIER: Now, do we know who Gazprom-Media is? Do you know
anything about Gazprom, director?
COMEY: I don't.
SPEIER: Well, it's a – it's an oil company.
(Incidentally, Gazprom – primarily a natural-gas giant – is
not really an oil company. So both Comey and Speier got it
wrong.)
As Leonid Bershidsky of Bloomberg
noted
,
this exchange was terrifying to Russians. The leader of an
investigation into Russian espionage not knowing what Gazprom is
would be like an FSB chief not having heard of Exxon-Mobil. It's
bizarre, to say the least.
Testimony of the sort that came from Warner's committee last
week is being buttressed by news stories in liberal outlets like
Salon
insisting that "Bernie Bros" were influenced by
those same ubiquitous McDermott-chasing Russian "bots."
These stories insist that, among other things, these evil
bots
pushed
on the unwitting "bros"
juicy "fake news" stories about
Hillary being "involved with various murders and money
laundering schemes."
Some
13.2
million
people voted for Sanders during the primary season
last year. What percentage does any rational person really
believe voted that way because of "fake news"?
I would guess the number is infinitesimal at best. The
Sanders campaign was driven by a lot of factors, but mainly by
long-developing discontent within the Democratic Party and
enthusiasm for Sanders himself.
To describe Sanders followers as unwitting dupes who departed
the true DNC faith because of evil Russian propaganda is both
insulting and ridiculous. It's also a testimony to the
remarkable capacity for self-deception within the leadership of
the Democratic Party.
If the party's leaders really believe that Russian
intervention is anywhere in the top 100 list of reasons why
some
155
million eligible voters
(out of 231 million) chose not to
pull a lever for Hillary Clinton last year, they're farther
along down the
Purity
of Essence nut-hole
than Mark Warner.
Moreover, even those who detest Trump with every fiber of
their being must see the dangerous endgame implicit in this
entire line of thinking. If the Democrats succeed in spreading
the idea that straying from the DNC-approved candidate – in
either the past or the future – is/was an act of "unwitting"
cooperation with the evil Putin regime, then the entire idea of
legitimate dissent is going to be in trouble.
Imagine it's four years from now (if indeed that's when we
have our next election). A Democratic candidate stands before
the stump, and announces that a consortium of intelligence
experts has concluded that Putin is backing the
hippie/anti-war/anti-corporate opposition candidate.
Or, even better: that same candidate reminds us "what
happened last time" when people decided to vote their
consciences during primary season. It will be argued, in
seriousness, that true Americans will owe their votes to the
non-Putin candidate. It would be a shock if some version of this
didn't become an effective political trope going forward.
But if you're not worried about accusing non-believers of
being spies, or pegging legitimate dissent as treason, there's a
third problem that should scare everyone.
Last week saw
Donna
Brazile
and
Dick
Cheney
both declare Russia's apparent hack of DNC emails an
"act of war." This coupling seemed at first like political end
times: as Bill Murray would say, "
dogs
and cats, living together
."
But there's been remarkable unanimity among would-be enemies
in the Republican and Democrat camps on this question. Suddenly
everyone from Speier to McCain to Kamala Harris to Ben Cardin
have decried Russia's alleged behavior during the election as
real or metaphorical acts of war: a "political Pearl Harbor," as
Cardin put it.
That no one seems to be concerned about igniting a hot war
with nuclear-powered Russia at a time when both countries have
troops
within
"hand-grenade range
" of each in Syria other is bizarre, to
say the least. People are in such a fever to drag Trump to
impeachment that these other considerations seem not to matter.
This is what happens when people lose their heads.
There are a lot of people who will say that these issues are
of secondary importance to the more important question of
whether or not we have a compromised Russian agent in the White
House.
But when it comes to Trump-Putin collusion, we're still
waiting for the confirmation. As Democratic congresswoman Maxine
Waters put it, the proof is increasingly understood to be the
thing we find later, as in, "
If
we do the investigations, we will find the connections
."
But on the mass hysteria front, we already have evidence
enough to fill a dozen books. And if it doesn't freak you out,
it probably should.
Watch illustrator Victor Juhasz discuss what it means to
draw President Donald Trump.
He also exposes the NSA penchant for "swindles", such as preventing the plugging of holes in software
around the world, to preserve their spying access.
Frank Oak
3 weeks ago Big Mike's boat 200 tons coke bust n Hussien on the run as cosmic Camelots crimes
going viral
Nancy M
3 weeks ago The Clinton campaign to divert attention to Russia instead of her myriad of crimes
that were revealed during the election must be stopped and the alt media needs to start talking about
her and Obama's crimes again and demand justice...control the dialogue
John
3 weeks ago It's almost comical to hear that they lie to each other. No wonder why these retards
in the mid-east and every other third world country gets the better of us.
"... Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He died in the 1983 embassy bombing. ..."
"... Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the time Nimr died. ..."
"... Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action. ..."
*I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to
yesterday's hastily written comment
on the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment
can be attributed to my gullibility.
Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon
came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty
good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized
as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time
when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed
the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He
died in the 1983 embassy bombing.
-The individual who was tortured and died soon afterward was Elias Nimr . A Christian intelligence
chieftain who appears to have played every side and angle he could during the Lebanon Civil War.
-The name of the CIA contractor who tortured Nimr was identified as Keith "Captain Crunch"
Hall . He was originally identified by Mark Bowden in his book Road Work: Among Tyrants, Heroes,
Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) A former Marine before he joined the CIA and was later a cop in
California.
Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program
during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold
cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the
time Nimr died.
-Bob Baer neglects to mention this specific incident of torture in See No Evil but doesn't
blame Nimr for the bombing of the embassy. *cough* Appropriately titled book if you ask me. *cough*
A part of his theory on the masterminds behind the '83 embassy bombings involves a former PLO
turned Hezbollah operative named Imad Mughniyeh . Baer claims that Mughniyeh is was still in contact
with his old Fatah contacts when the embassy was bombed.
Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that
I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests
it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action.
-The name of the alleged defector from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was actually a deputy
defense minister and former brigadier general named Ali Reza Asgari . There was and still probably
is controversy whether he was kidnapped or defected. The Iranians wouldn't want it known that
such a high ranking defector went over to the West hence the kidnapping story.
Hah! Guess not posting much for a few months finally caught up with me.
"... As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole. ..."
"... On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm. ..."
"... One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." ..."
"... RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag. ..."
"... As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S." ..."
"... The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT. ..."
"... The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion. ..."
"... Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. ..."
"... The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. ..."
Mr. Trump had just ordered a Tomahawk strike against Syria's Shayrat air base, from which,
the United States said, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had launched the chemical weapons attack
that killed more than 80 and sickened hundreds.
As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right
wormhole.
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible
for the chemical strike. There was some "reportage" from sources like the conspiracy theorist
and radio host Alex Jones - best known for suggesting that the Sandy Hook school massacre was
staged - that the chemical attack was a "false flag" operation by terrorist rebel groups to goad
the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. But that was a view from the fringe.
Here in Russia, it was the dominant theme throughout the overwhelmingly state-controlled mainstream
media.
On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned
how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government
had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr.
Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm.
One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing
the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the
test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
That teed up Mr. Putin to suggest in nationally televised comments a couple of days later that
perhaps the attack was an intentional "provocation" by the rebels to goad the United States into
attacking Mr. Assad. RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated
Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag." The full Alex Jones was complete.
When Trump administration officials tried to counter Russia's "false narratives" by releasing
to reporters a declassified report detailing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles - and suggesting
to The Associated Press without proof that Russia knew of Mr. Assad's plans to use chemical weapons
in advance - the Russians had a ready answer borrowed from Mr. Trump himself.
As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald
Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S."
It was the best evidence I've seen of the folly of Mr. Trump's anti-press approach. You can't
spend more than a year attacking the credibility of the "dishonest media" and then expect to use
its journalism as support for your position during an international crisis - at least not with
any success.
While Mr. Trump and his supporters may think that undermining the news media serves their larger
interests, in this great information war it serves Mr. Putin's interests more. It means playing
on his turf, where he excels.
Integral to Mr. Putin's governing style has been a pliant press that makes his government the
main arbiter of truth.
While talking to the beaten but unbowed members of the real journalism community here, I heard
eerie hints of Trumpian proclamations in their war stories.
Take Mr. Trump's implicit threat to the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, during the
election campaign. In case you've forgotten, while calling The Post's coverage of him "horrible
and false," Mr. Trump warned that if he won the presidency Mr. Bezos's other business, Amazon,
would have "such problems." (The Post was undaunted, and the issue hasn't come up again.)
300 Words
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone
with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely
that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels,
rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything
to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons,
which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those
fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret.
Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April
17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi
Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr.
Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to
the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative
were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks
at a non-alt right site like
https://consortiumnews.com/
can easily confirm. And of course a highly
respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two
notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about
the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") -
but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-ŕ-vis Russia).
400 Words
@for-the-record
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that
it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the
not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing
to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still
had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer
the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical
weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April 17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad
had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the
effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were
only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a
non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And
of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published
not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence
Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and
amateurish") -- but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-ŕ-vis Russia).
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-ŕ-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years
that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to
be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a
months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der
Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama
handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to
explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is
is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq
and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted
to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the
deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis
and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-ŕ-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that
anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be
getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months
long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel
daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the
US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US
unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a
dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and
the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to
the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal
with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and
the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok
Nice short film. However, I cannot agree that people are in some kind of "oh
dear" mindset. On the contrary, they are easily instrumented into supporting
any random "something must be (militarily) done" call for action. Maybe a
direct consequence of post-Gulf War 1 triumphalism, when the US was great
again and apparently had left behind of trauma of Vietnam for good (that was
an actual talking point, believe it or not!). With the Soviet Union no more,
poised to rework the world in its own image, the US was!
It all went south
of course. We got the Yougoslavia catastrophe. Taking sides along with
Europeans acting according to reflexes harking back to 1914 and dropping
bombs didn't go all that well. When bombing started, Serbia was as
MSM-tarred as Syria is today. We got 10 years of suppressing Mr. Hussein.
Something was happening in Russia and maybe Chechnya and Georgia but no-one
was all too certain what or why. We got the surprise Hutu-on-Tutsi massacre
after which liberventionists were clamoring that "something should have been
done". There was some "cruise missile diplomacy" (i.e. Clinton bombs Sudan).
There were noises from Afghanistan with military commanders in particular
Ahmad Shah Massoud fighting someone called "Taliban" but nobody cared about
that. There was the marginally interesting Israel-Palestinian conflict with
neverending talks and the Israelis starting to behave like jerks after the
assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. We got first "hard" terrorism hits: A
bombing in the WTC basement, a sarin gas attack in Tokyo, a diplomatic
mission in Africa and of course the OKC bombing. Well, I guess those years
of practically pre-Internet chaos were when "liberventionism" gelled.
The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still
hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in
humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American
people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one
knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in
Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war
profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries
to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion.
Also VIPS had
American intelligence contacts in the Middle East who said the Syrians hit
something that had chemicals in it. Everyone has their anonymous
intelligence sources. Assad isn't going anywhere there could have been a
proper investigation. The US media salivated at the bombing of Syria. The US
media is the American Empire's id. It tells it to do stupid stuff that is
going to get it killed. The US media loves to play nuclear chicken with
Russia. I suppose psychopaths need a lot of stimulation and what could be
more stimulating than a risk of nuclear war.
If the US media was doing its job it would not just be after Trump's
relationship with Russia. It would be after the whole American
establishments cozy relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia. They've
turned the US into a banana empire. Of course the US media is tied to
weapons producers and Israel gets a welfare check to buy American arms and
Saudi Arabia buys American arms. Also Israel no matter what it does is
protected because of guilt (which will be its undoing because its bad
behavior is not being checked). If Russia bought American arms I bet the US
media would love Putin. The US media then would take it upon themselves to
support Putin against his enemies.
Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian
proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the
preferred outcome for the US media. Its irrational unless you realize who
its working for. Its not the American people. Its not even working to keep
the US Empire in a position of strength. It demands obedience to the whims
of the Empire's global subjects and its domestic war industry. That is what
this Russian crap was about Trump. Maybe they tried to interfere. People
were going to vote the way they voted anyway because Trump struck an
emotional cord with his larger than life personality and the Democrats
conspired against the candidate that could have beaten him (Bernie) while
making sure no one that could win would run for the Democrat nomination.
Also the Israelis are right wing and they get away with stuff the Alt-right
could never get away with in the US (and I hope wouldn't want to engage in).
What they do to the Palestinians is straight out of Nazi Germany before the
holocaust (which is coming for the Palestinians). They loved Trump and voted
for him. US media doesn't make a big deal about this. Any reporter who did
would risk losing their job.
The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put
behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even
bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the
line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied
to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. By being
whores for war profiteers and their global allies the US media makes Russian
government controlled media seem great in comparison. There is no reason why
the US should be a whore for unsavory governments and organizations across
the world. Its 20 trillion in debt and the US media uses verbal abuse and
praise to manipulate the President into making war, while framing the war
into simplistic and cartoonish terms. There are some that are extremely
wealthy. The Europeans could handle their own security but manipulating the
US to do it is easy because of the US media and easily malleable
politicians.
How about the US media find some poor defenseless country and harp up a
war and bleed the US Empire dry of its wealth in a fruitless quagmire and
call it a day? Some of us do have a self preservation instinct and fighting
Russia for the mess in Syria is stupid. If it was me I'd try to get the
defense companies to focus on space and space mining. Whoever controls outer
space will control humanity's destiny. But go ahead bleed the US dry on
these short sided money grabbing crusades so other countries can take over
outer space instead.
If there is some connection, it will come out after some time. Comey said there was an FBI investigation
into Russian interference in the election. The former National Security adviser Flynn wants an
immunity deal.
But the liberals like PGL have certainly gone hysterical in that it reminds me of McCarthyism.
They'd rather talk about the traitors than why Hillary lost the election to a buffoon. Samantha
Bee joked that the Russian hackers who spread fake news in Midwest swing states had a better game
plan than Hillary.
The center-left cant' believe they lost to Trump. So they focus on Russia, the external enemy.
The Trump Organization subsisted for years off Russian oligarch money and his campaign and administration
are lousy with people paid directly by them for political activities including his son.
And you wonder "if" there is a connection? Bless your useful heart.
I am going to bet that you are Hillary email scandal denier. And worse -- clueless jingoist,
who get your all foreign policy information from the CNN and then uncritically regurgitate this
neoliberal propaganda here.
Each of us has a set of positions, and there should be some level of respect of them despite
differences, because it is the debate that gets us closer to the truth.
And it is a required behavior for those, who like you continuously try to show up your university
education, despite the evidence to the contrary that that their posts often produce.
The real sign of the university education is the tolerance toward the opponents. It is badly
lacking in your behavior in this forum.
Looks like
John O. Brennan
, then the CIA director was a very important player in creating anti-Russian hysteria. Who put
a lot of efforts is fanning the "Russian threat" meme designed to suppress Hillary email scandal and
DNC revelations. some senators such as McCain and Reid also played a role:
"Mr. Reid fired off another letter on Oct. 30, accusing Mr. Comey of a "double standard" in reviving
the Clinton investigation while sitting on "explosive information" about possible ties between
Russia and Mr. Trump."
I suspect that this is more of an attempt to unite the
divided nation (and, especially, the Democratic Party), in
which the majority of population now rejects official
ideology of neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization. With
trust in official institution such as Congress, at
dangerously low levels. And rumors (aka "fake news") rampant
due to lack of trust in discredited official media channels.
Proliferation of rumors ("improvised news") as Tamotsu
Shubitani noted in his book (
https://www.amazon.com/Improvised-News-Sociological-Study-Rumor/dp/0672511487
) is a definitive sign of the crisis of legitimacy of the
ruling elite and/or dominant ideology of a given society.
Sign of growing level of distrust.
War hysteria is a proven cure in such circumstances. It
also helps to suppress Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.
Susan A. Brewer is Professor of History at the University of
Wisconsin-Stevens Point book, Why America Fights: Patriotism
and War Propaganda from the Philippines to Iraq, told a
fascinating history of how the US elite has conducted what
Donald Rumsfeld called "perception management" on the US
population:
== quote ==
10. WE FIGHT TO STOP ANOTHER HITLER. There was only one
Hitler, but he lives on in wartime propaganda since World War
II.
9. WE FIGHT OVER THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT HERE. In
this message, America typically is portrayed as a pastoral
land of small towns, not as an urban, industrialized and
militant superpower.
8. WE FIGHT CLEAN WARS WITH SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY. This
message suggests that U.S. troops will not be in much danger,
nor will innocent civilians be killed in what is projected to
be a quick and decisive conflict.
7. WE FIGHT TO PROTECT WOMEN AND CHILDREN. A traditional
theme of war propaganda since ancient times, it is
accompanied by compelling visuals and heartrending stories.
6. WE FIGHT BRUTISH, FANATICAL ENEMIES. Another classic,
it dehumanizes enemy fighters.
5. WE FIGHT TO UNITE THE NATION. Here war is shown to heal
old wounds and unify the divisions caused by the Civil War,
class conflict, racial and ethnic differences, or past
failures such as the Vietnam War.
4. WE FIGHT FOR THE FLAG AND THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT
STANDS. The trend has been to emphasize the flag over the
republic. The more flags on display, the less likely the
people's elected representatives will debate foreign policy
or exercise their power to declare war.
3. WE FIGHT TO LIBERATE THE OPPRESSED. When the oppressed
resist U.S. help, they appear ungrateful and in need of
American guidance especially if they have valuable resources.
2. WE FIGHT TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE. During the
Philippine War, for example, this message advised that Uncle
Sam knew what was best for the little brown brothers.
1. WE FIGHT TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. Although
the American way of life stands for peace, it requires a lot
of fighting.
== end of quote ==
So it like the real goal of current warmongering hysteria
is to unite the nation in general and Democratic Party in
particular against the common enemy, using Russian threat as
a scapegoat.
This also helps to preserve the grip of Clinton
(neoliberal) wing on Democratic Party, because after Hillary
momentous fiasco, in normal circumstances, all of them need
to go and be replaced with Sanders wing appointees.
"That's total horseshit," said Wayne Merry, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council
who worked as a U.S. diplomat to Russia and has known Kislyak for decades. "It's a witch-hunt
with paranoia and hysteria at its core. Normally it's the Russians who become paranoid and hysterical.
That the conspiracy theories and paranoia is coming from Americans makes me very uncomfortable."
The past two U.S. ambassadors to Russia defended Kislyak in interviews with The Hill: Michael
McFaul a fierce Trump critic who was appointed by former President Obama, and John Beyrle, who
was appointed by former President George W. Bush but served for three years under Obama.
Both former ambassadors tell The Hill that the Russian ambassador was merely doing his job
and that there is no evidence of any illicit collusion between him and the Trump campaign.
McFaul and Beyrle say they are extremely troubled by evidence that suggests the Russians interfered
in the U.S. election. They support an independent investigation into the matter.
But allegations and insinuations that Kislyak was the point person for this - and that it could
have played out in broad daylight at meetings on Capitol Hill or at Trump campaign events - are
preposterous, they say.
"Kislyak's job is to meet with government officials and campaign people and I think he's good
at his job," said McFaul. "People should meet with the Russian ambassador and it's wrong to criminalize
that or discourage it. I want the Russian government to be as informed as possible about the American
political process. When I was ambassador, it was frustrating how poorly informed the Russian government
was. It's a good thing to meet with him, not a bad thing."
National security experts generally agree that Sessions and other Trump campaign officials
have handled the Russia issue poorly.
Sessions, they say, should have told Congress about his meeting with Kislyak.
And they say Flynn was reckless and wrong to speak with Russian diplomats about sanctions during
the transition period when Obama was still president.
Still, former diplomats say the atmosphere in Washington over anything that carries even a
whiff of Russia is out of control.
"It's the usual Washington breathlessness that accompanies any story these days about Trump
or the Russians," said Beyrle. "That doesn't mean there isn't need for an investigation. There
is almost no question that there was Russian interference in the election and there needs to be
an investigation. But to conclude from all this that Kislyak was somehow a bad actor is missing
the target."
National security experts say the uproar around Kislyak could have foreign policy reverberations,
potentially making life difficult for the current U.S. ambassador to Russia, John Tefft, or his
successor, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
"The Russian default mode is reciprocity," said Beyrle. "If they feel we're doing it to them,
more often than not they'll do it back to us."
McFaul has experienced this first-hand. He routinely landed on the front page of Russian newspapers,
accused of fomenting revolution.
"I was demonized and called all kinds of things in the Russian press and I don't want Americans
to do to Kislyak what the Russian government did to me," McFaul said. "It's not good for U.S.
Russian relations. People should be able to meet with him without fear of being called a double-agent.
Throwing around loosely, without documentation, that this person is an intelligence officer is
dangerous."
It's damaging to U.S. interests for lawmakers to be skittish about meeting with foreign ambassadors,
according to Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security at the U.S. Naval War College.
From the Russian perspective, Gvosdev is worried that the frenzy around Kislyak will provoke
the Russians to shut down diplomatic backchannels needed for the countries to cooperate on even
basic levels.
"Russia is still a major player. We can't not talk to them, " Gvosdev said. "We are really
creating issues for future diplomacy with the Russians and this will make it harder when there's
an actual major challenge from them."
Andrey Sushentsov, the head of the Moscow-based Foreign Policy Advisory Group and a program
director at the Valdai Club there, says the damage has already been done.
"It seems that the "Russian question" is becoming one of the issues in America's culture wars,"
Sushentsov said in an email to The Hill. "By demonizing a foreign partner for a political purposes
the U.S. limits it's capability in global governance and diplomacy.
"Russia was not expecting the relations with the U.S. to improve significantly, but was not
striving to worsen them even more. What Russia needs is predictability and stability in its relations
with the US - even if this is a negative stability. Current climate in Washington does not permit
this." Tags Jeff Sessions
"... CIA officers penetrated a network used to share information by Senate Intel committee members, including Sen. Diane Feinstein, the committee's Democrat chair. The bombshell New York Times report went on to disclose: ..."
As the facts about who surveilled whom during the transition get sorted out, it is useful to remember why Trump's team and his
supporters have reason to be suspicious, thanks to a long documented history of Obama using shady surveillance tactics on both political
opponents and international allies. Rhodes himself knows this history but that doesn't seem to matter as he once again attempts to
make people believe he fell out of the sky and onto Twitter on January 21st, 2017.
... ... ...
1. Fox News reporter James Rosen
In 2013 the news broke that Eric Holder's Justice Department
had spied on James Rosen . Obama's DOJ collected Rosen's telephone records as well as tracked his movements to and from the State
Department from where he reported. Rosen was named as a possible co-conspirator in a Justice Department affidavit. Rosen claims that
his parents phone line was also swept up in the collection of his records and DOJ records seem to confirm that. Despite the targeting
of Rosen, there were no brave calls to boycott the White House Correspondents Dinner.
2. Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA
CIA officers
penetrated a network used to share information by Senate Intel committee members, including Sen. Diane Feinstein, the committee's
Democrat chair. The bombshell New York Times report went on to disclose:
The CIA officials penetrated the computer network when they came to suspect that the committee's staff had gained unauthorized
access to an internal CIA review of the detention program that the spy agency never intended to give to Congress. A CIA lawyer then
referred the agency's suspicions to the Justice Department to determine whether the committee staff broke the law when it obtained
that document. The inspector general report said that there was no "factual basis" for this referral, which the Justice Department
has declined to investigate, because the lawyer had been provided inaccurate information. The report said that the three information
technology officers "demonstrated a lack of candor about their activities" during interviews with the inspector general.
The Obama White House defended CIA director John Brennan's actions and response. Imagine that.
3. Associated Press Phone Records
Much like James Rosen and his shady al Qaeda looking parents, Obama's Justice Department
secretly obtained months of phone records belonging to AP journalists while investigating a failed terror attack. And much like
the Rosen spying, this was personally approved by Attorney General Holder.
Mass surveillance and expansion of such under the Patriot Act is one of the most historically prevalent things about the Obama
administration. There's even a Wikipedia page
dedicated to that alone . So why
do the media and former administration officials act shocked and surprised when someone points the finger in their direction and
asks if targeting an incoming President is possible?
There is a long, decorated history of questionable-even unconstitutional-surveillance from the Obama administration none of which
proves Trump's twitter ravings to be true. But it certainly is enough to raise suspicions among Trump's supporters and even some
of this critics that he could be perfectly correct.
Line was the case during McCartyism, when mass hysteria grips the USA it becomes a powerful and destructive
material force. Kind of a new type of explosive device.
It would be very fanny, if it is not so tragic for a country to descend into some king of
pseudo-religious trance...
Notable quotes:
"... Whatever the truth about Trump and Russia, the speculation surrounding it has become a dangerous case of mass hysteria ..."
"... This is one of the tricks that keeps every good conspiracy theory going. Nobody wants to be the one claiming the emperor has no clothes the day His Highness walks out naked. And this Russia thing has spun out of control into just such an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria. ..."
"... But if you're not worried about accusing non-believers of being spies, or pegging legitimate dissent as treason, there's a third problem that should scare everyone. ..."
"... But on the mass hysteria front, we already have evidence enough to fill a dozen books. And if it doesn't freak you out, it probably should. ..."
Whatever the truth about Trump and Russia, the speculation surrounding
it has become a dangerous case of mass hysteria
So Michael Flynn, who was Donald Trump's national security adviser before he got busted talking
out of school to Russia's ambassador, has reportedly
offered to testify in exchange for immunity.
Trump has stuffed his Cabinet with tyrants, zealots and imbeciles
– all bent on demolishing our government from within
For seemingly the 100th time, social media is exploding. This is it! The big reveal!
Perhaps it will come off just the way people are expecting. Perhaps Flynn will get a deal, walk
into the House or the Senate surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers, and unspool the whole sordid conspiracy.
He will explain that Donald Trump, compromised by ancient deals with Russian mobsters, and perhaps
even blackmailed by an unspeakable KGB sex tape, made a secret deal. He'll say Trump agreed to downplay
the obvious benefits of an armed
proxy war in Ukraine with nuclear-armed Russia in exchange for Vladimir Putin's help in stealing
the emails of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and John Podesta.
I personally would be surprised if this turned out to be the narrative, mainly because we haven't
seen any real evidence of it. But episodes like the Flynn story have even the most careful reporters
paralyzed. What if, tomorrow, it all turns out to be true?
What if reality does turn out to be a massive connect-the-dots image of St. Basil's Cathedral
sitting atop the White House? (This was suddenly legitimate British conspiracist Louise Mensch's
construction in The New York Times last week.) What if all the
Glenn
Beck-style
far-out
charts with the
circles and
arrows somehow all make sense?
This is one of the tricks that keeps every good conspiracy theory going. Nobody wants to be the
one claiming the emperor has no clothes the day His Highness walks out naked. And this Russia thing
has spun out of control into just such an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria.
Even I think there should be a legitimate independent investigation – one that, given Trump's
history, might uncover all sorts of things. But almost irrespective of what ends up being uncovered
on the Trump side, the public prosecution of this affair has taken on a malevolent life of its own.
One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn't believe is accused
of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media
circles in recent weeks.
The aforementioned Mensch, a noted loon who thinks
Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart but has somehow been put front and center by The Times
and HBO's Real Time, has denounced an extraordinary list of Kremlin plants.
She's tabbed everyone from Jeff Sessions ("a
Russian partisan") to Rudy Giuliani and former Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom ("agents
of influence") to Glenn Greenwald ("Russian
shill") to ProPublica and Democracy Now! (also "Russian
shills"), tothe 15-year-old girl with whom Anthony Weiner sexted (really,
she says, a Russian hacker group called "Crackas With Attitudes") to an unnamed number of FBI agents
in the New York field office ("moles").
And that's just for starters.
Others are doing the same. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, upon seeing the strange behavior
of Republican Intel Committee chair Devin Nunes,
asked
"what kind of dossier" the Kremlin has on Nunes.
Dem-friendly pollster Matt McDermott
wondered why
reporters Michael Tracey and Zaid Jilani aren't on board with the conspiracy stories (they might
be "unwitting" agents!) and
noted, without
irony, that Russian bots mysteriously appear every time he tweets negatively about them.
Think about that last one. Does McDermott think Tracey and Jilani call their handlers at the sight
of a scary Matt McDermott tweet and have the FSB send waves of Russian bots at him on command? Or
does he think it's an automated process? What goes through the heads of such people?
I've written a few articles on the Russia subject that have been very tame, basically arguing
that it might be a good idea to wait for evidence of collusion before those of us in the media jump
in the story with both feet. But even I've gotten the
treatment.
I've been "outed" as a
possible paid
Putin plant by the infamous "PropOrNot" group, which is supposedly dedicated to rooting out Russian
"agents of influence." You might remember PropOrNot as the illustrious research team the Washington
Post once relied on for a report that
accused 200 alternative websites of being "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the
election season."
Politicians are getting into the act, too. It was one thing when Rand Paul
balked at OKing the expansion of NATO to Montenegro, and John McCain didn't hesitate to say that
"the senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin."
Even Bernie Sanders has himself been
accused
of being a Putin plant by Mensch. But even he's gotten on board of late,
asking, "What do the Russians have on Mr. Trump?"
So even people who themselves have been accused of being Russian plants are now accusing people
of being Russian plants. As the Russians would say, it's enough to make your bashka hurt.
Sanders should know better. Last week, during hearings in the Senate, multiple witnesses essentially
pegged his electoral following as unwitting fellow travelers for Putin.
Former NSA chief Keith Alexander
spoke openly of how Russia used the Sanders campaign to "drive a wedge within the Democratic
Party," while Dr. Thomas Rid of Kings College in London spoke of Russia's use of "unwitting agents"
and "overeager journalists" to drive narratives that destabilized American politics.
This testimony was brought out by Virginia Democrat Mark Warner. Warner has been in full-blown
"precious bodily fluids" mode throughout this scandal. During an
interview with TheTimeson the Russia subject a month back, there was a
thud outside the window. "That may just be the FSB," he said. The paper was unsure if he was kidding.
Warner furthermore told TheTimes that in order to get prepared for his role as
an exposer of 21st-century Russian perfidy,he was "losing himself in a book about the Romanovs,"
and had been quizzing staffers about "Tolstoy and Nabokov."
This is how nuts things are now: a senator brushes up on Nabokov and Tolstoy (Tolstoy!)
to get pumped to expose Vladimir Putin.
Even the bizarre admission by FBI director (and sudden darling of the same Democrats who hated
him months ago) James Comey that he didn't know anything about Russia's biggest company didn't seem
to trouble Americans very much. Here's the
key exchange, from a House hearing in which Jackie Speier quizzed Comey:
SPEIER: Now, do we know who Gazprom-Media is? Do you know anything about Gazprom, director?
COMEY: I don't.
SPEIER: Well, it's a – it's an oil company.
(Incidentally, Gazprom – primarily a natural-gas giant – is not really an oil company. So both
Comey and Speier got it wrong.)
As Leonid Bershidsky of Bloomberg
noted, this exchange was terrifying to Russians. The leader of an investigation into Russian
espionage not knowing what Gazprom is would be like an FSB chief not having heard of Exxon-Mobil.
It's bizarre, to say the least.
Testimony of the sort that came from Warner's committee last week is being buttressed
by news stories in liberal outlets like Saloninsisting that "Bernie Bros" were influenced
by those same ubiquitous McDermott-chasing Russian "bots."
These stories insist that, among other things, these evil bots
pushed on the unwitting "bros" juicy "fake news" stories about Hillary being "involved with various
murders and money laundering schemes."
Some
13.2 million people voted for Sanders during the primary season last year. What percentage does
any rational person really believe voted that way because of "fake news"?
I would guess the number is infinitesimal at best. The Sanders campaign was driven by a lot of
factors, but mainly by long-developing discontent within the Democratic Party and enthusiasm for
Sanders himself.
To describe Sanders followers as unwitting dupes who departed the true DNC faith because of evil
Russian propaganda is both insulting and ridiculous. It's also a testimony to the remarkable capacity
for self-deception within the leadership of the Democratic Party.
If the party's leaders really believe that Russian intervention is anywhere in the top 100 list
of reasons why some
155 million eligible voters (out of 231 million) chose not to pull a lever for Hillary Clinton
last year, they're farther along down the
Purity of Essence nut-hole
than Mark Warner.
Moreover, even those who detest Trump with every fiber of their being must see the dangerous endgame
implicit in this entire line of thinking. If the Democrats succeed in spreading the idea that straying
from the DNC-approved candidate – in either the past or the future – is/was an act of "unwitting"
cooperation with the evil Putin regime, then the entire idea of legitimate dissent is going to be
in trouble.
Imagine it's four years from now (if indeed that's when we have our next election). A Democratic
candidate stands before the stump, and announces that a consortium of intelligence experts has concluded
that Putin is backing the hippie/anti-war/anti-corporate opposition candidate.
Or, even better: that same candidate reminds us "what happened last time" when people decided
to vote their consciences during primary season. It will be argued, in seriousness, that true Americans
will owe their votes to the non-Putin candidate. It would be a shock if some version of this didn't
become an effective political trope going forward.
But if you're not worried about accusing non-believers of being spies, or pegging legitimate
dissent as treason, there's a third problem that should scare everyone.
Last week saw
Donna Brazile and
Dick Cheney both declare Russia's apparent hack of DNC emails an "act of war." This coupling
seemed at first like political end times: as Bill Murray would say, "dogs
and cats, living together."
But there's been remarkable unanimity among would-be enemies in the Republican and Democrat camps
on this question. Suddenly everyone from Speier to McCain to Kamala Harris to Ben Cardin have decried
Russia's alleged behavior during the election as real or metaphorical acts of war: a "political Pearl
Harbor," as Cardin put it.
That no one seems to be concerned about igniting a hot war with nuclear-powered Russia at a time
when both countries have troops
within "hand-grenade range" of each in Syria other is bizarre, to say the least. People are in
such a fever to drag Trump to impeachment that these other considerations seem not to matter. This
is what happens when people lose their heads.
There are a lot of people who will say that these issues are of secondary importance to the more
important question of whether or not we have a compromised Russian agent in the White House.
But when it comes to Trump-Putin collusion, we're still waiting for the confirmation. As Democratic
congresswoman Maxine Waters put it, the proof is increasingly understood to be the thing we find
later, as in, "If
we do the investigations, we will find the connections."
But on the mass hysteria front, we already have evidence enough to fill a dozen books. And
if it doesn't freak you out, it probably should.
Watch illustrator Victor Juhasz discuss what it means to draw President Donald Trump.
And on the other hand here is a video with Jimmy Dore and Josh Fox about the breathtaking decline
and servile desperation for corporate money of MSNBC
here and
here .
Well, hysteria is to be expected when the privileged in politics and the media feel as though
their privileges are at risk.
Michael Hudson explains that the Senate hearings on Russia are an effort by Democrats to
torpedo improvements in Russia-US relations and lack any real evidence of Russian meddling
William W Haywood
•
2 hours ago
He builds his story around Clapper being a truth teller? UNBELIEVABLE
idiocy when you expect me to believe this crap!
Seer
•
5 hours ago
Two top US experts on Russia, Professor Stephen Cohen and Ray McGovern
(ex-CIA analyst) and Robert David Steele (ex-CIA0 and Bill Binney (ex
NSA) ALL state the Dems accusations are ALL BOGUS. I tend to believe
them rather than mainstream media and wonder if RN is going mainstream
soon?
Marko
•
6 hours ago
" Russia Hearings Will Lead Nowhere "
Nowhere involving Russia ,
perhaps , but they're leading somewhere involving the U.S. :
They're leading to the uncovering of an illegal political
witch-hunt , probably on the orders of Obama , though Rice will likely
take the fall. Said fall should include jail time , but we all know
that elites don't "do" jail in the U.S. , unlike in the less-advanced
democracies , like Iceland or S. Korea.
Jon Henri Matteau
•
7 hours ago
Really, this collusion is what is harming any US Russian relation,
that and the Ukraine issue. If there wasn't an issue, sit back and let
the investigations prove it. We had NINE redundant investigations into
an exaggerated scandal. what are people afraid of if this is pursued?
weilunion
•
8 hours ago
They are designed by the deep state to lead to nowhere but destraction.
Octavia Bee
•
9 hours ago
Oh my--how does Hudson know there is no evidence? Does he have some
sort of top-secret security clearance? It's also curious how Hudson is
so supportive of Putin, who is a horrific dictator.
He's obviously another deluded Trumpster. Why would this man be given
the role of an expert? Sad!
Donatella
Octavia Bee
•
8 hours ago
More empty rhetoric from the McCarthyite Democrat party. The
Democrat party did not allow the government to inspect the server
that was "hacked". Instead they used the information from a private
company that depends upon them for income. So we really don't know
if it was a hack or a leak by a Democrat insider like Seth Rich.
Obama was more of a "horrific" leader killing tens of thousands of
innocents than Putin. Anyone calling him a "dictator" is just
either parroting talking points or is uninformed.
Donatella
Wallace
•
7 hours ago
As usual you are mindlessly parroting neocon or
Democrats talking points. Putin won his last election
with 63% of the votes cast. And yes, the oligarchs
stole Russian wealth under Yeltsin with the help of the
U.S. Yeltsin would have lost his reelection if it had
not been for the intervention of American help. You
should take your own suggestion and read some history.
The only reason Russia has not experienced high growth
is because of the U.S. imperial financial sanctions.
The U.S. also pushed Russian into a closer alliance
with China, which the U.S. will learn to regret. The
U.S. is on a long-term decline and the 21st century
will see a rising China and Russia.
And yes, his annexation of Crimea by a 90+ vote by
the Crimean voters (majority are Russian) is a good
example of Putins populist strengthening of Russia.
Better than letting the neo-Nazis in Kiev take over
what has been Russian territory and give NATO a
military base.
Raoulfr des Roches
1
day ago
Gary Duarte You're delusional!!! The FBI
and The CIA have both implicated the
Russians in interfering in the American
political process.
Geral Hammonds
1
day ago
Because EVERYONE knows Russia hacking , interfering,
meddling, influencing is a complete joke. Its only
the MSM & the democrats that pretend its real. SMH
206 guy
1
day ago (edited)
timmy turner Only a fool would a believe a
central intelligence agency just because
they're the central intelligence agency.
Fucking sheep's.
Natalia Jensen
1
day ago
timmy turner Not only are you a
brainwashed, delusional libtard, you're
also a racist. Poor baby. The Alt-Left
libtards are a worldwide joke & I love it.
The article is pure low quality McCarthyism (as one commenter characterized it "Bullshit of the
most brainless sort") and signify that Democratic Party brass kointed forces with neocons to undermine
Trump. But some comments are interesting
Notable quotes:
"... Popycock! Complete and utter drivel! Hillary's credibility has been undermined by many years of attacks by the "legitimate" media, as well as the right-wing conspiracy media. Was James Comey, a right-wing hack himself, a Russian plant? ..."
"... Secondly, by far most of the Republicans would've voted for Trump regardless. Beyond that he managed to seduce some voters in the key states that he was bringing jobs back. He lied, of course, and everyone knew it, but ti was still more compelling than whatever Hillary was peddling. And let's face it, Clinton just failed to inspire voters. ..."
"... The Clintoncrats for a start should be purged from the party as expediently as is polite. Like real fucking soon. ..."
"... What a pathetic display of failed propaganda, Salon. Even Sith Lord Clapper came out and said there's NO EVIDENCE. Piss off and go fight your WW3 alone you warmongers! ..."
"... That investigation is just beginning. And today, Nunes didn't help Easy D's case. On the other hand, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin does not wrestle bears. ..."
"... Don't pull that innocent bullshit -- America is complicit in virtually every geopolitical disaster on the planet since the end of WW II. You play with the bull, you get the horn... . ..."
"... Democrats!! -- Your candidate lost! The Russians didn't steal the election! I know that The Powers That Be need an Enemy, an "Other" to justify America's monstrous defense budget, but enough of the anti-Russia hysteria bullsh*t! ..."
"... Um, the candidate who ostensibly 'won' is proposing to increase our defense budget at the expense of virtually everything ..."
Knowing what we know now, it's no longer a stretch to report that Trump was placed in office by Putin.
But it only happened because millions of Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants,
undermining and betraying their own country and their own democratic elections. Make no mistake:
Putin's attack was less about electing Donald Trump and more about turning Americans against America.
Whether you were suckered by Putin or voted for Trump based on fake news, we all suffer from a skewed
view of U.S. elections today. We're all more suspicious about whether our elections are on the level,
and we should be. Putin's goal was to goad us into asking the perpetual question: How can we possibly
trust the outcomes of future elections knowing that Russia preselected our president years ago and
then set about guaranteeing that outcome by turning our people against us?
This is the next
colossal problem to solve. Once we weed out Putin's quislings inside the White House, we have no
choice but to pursue a far greater task: re-establishing the integrity of our elections while re-establishing
facts and reality as the basis for our decisions. There are too many of us who sadly and disturbingly
can't tell the difference between foreign propaganda - fake news - and legitimate news. This has
to change or else Putin will have won, and democracy as we know it will cease to exist.
Bob Cesca is a regular contributor to Salon.com. He's also the host of "The
Bob Cesca Show" podcast, and a weekly guest on both the "Stephanie Miller Show" and "Tell Me
Everything with John Fugelsang." Follow him on
Facebook and
Twitter.
Popycock! Complete and utter drivel! Hillary's credibility has been undermined by many years
of attacks by the "legitimate" media, as well as the right-wing conspiracy media. Was James Comey,
a right-wing hack himself, a Russian plant?
Secondly, by far most of the Republicans would've voted for Trump regardless. Beyond that
he managed to seduce some voters in the key states that he was bringing jobs back. He lied, of
course, and everyone knew it, but ti was still more compelling than whatever Hillary was peddling.
And let's face it, Clinton just failed to inspire voters.
The DNC is in deep trouble as they look to project all their woeful inadequacies on nefarious
Russian hackers. The Clintoncrats for a start should be purged from the party as expediently
as is polite. Like real fucking soon.
What a pathetic display of failed propaganda, Salon. Even Sith Lord Clapper came out and said
there's NO EVIDENCE. Piss off and go fight your WW3 alone you warmongers!
That investigation is just beginning. And today, Nunes didn't help Easy D's case. On the other
hand, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin does not wrestle bears.
Is it possible you have mistaken Russias target? It is not democracy that they are attempting
to undermine, because they don't exhibit this kind of animus towards any of the other democracies
in the world, with the exception of those that consistently meddle in Russian interests.
Don't
pull that innocent bullshit -- America is complicit in virtually every geopolitical disaster on
the planet since the end of WW II. You play with the bull, you get the horn... .
Democrats!! -- Your candidate lost! The Russians didn't steal the election! I know that
The Powers That Be need an Enemy, an "Other" to justify America's monstrous defense budget, but
enough of the anti-Russia hysteria bullsh*t!
Um, the candidate who ostensibly 'won' is proposing to increase our defense budget at the
expense of virtually everythingelse so your logic does not track, Comrade. Oh, and have a
shot of Putinka on me, Comrade.
Dr.
Nick Begich breaks down what he thinks is why the globalists are so afraid of Russia, relating to
it's history and it's progress post communism.
Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach
millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family:
http://www.infowars.com/show
"... A major reason that Democrats have become neo-McCarthyite is to keep the Bernistas at bay. Blaming everything on Putin blocks any accountability for the party's Wall Street leadership. If Masha Gessen is complaining about Democratic overreach (" Don't Fight Their Lies With Lies of Your Own ") then you know something is seriously out of whack. ..."
"... the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party's central committee ..."
"... by the state Democratic Party committee ..."
"... a number of elected officials serving in an ex officio capacity ..."
"... representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies ..."
A major reason that Democrats have become neo-McCarthyite is to keep the Bernistas at
bay. Blaming everything on Putin blocks any accountability for the party's Wall Street
leadership. If Masha Gessen is complaining about Democratic overreach ("
Don't
Fight Their Lies With Lies of Your Own
") then you know something is seriously out of
whack.
Salon's latest appears to blame America ennui and cynicism on deliberate putin ploys ...
I suspect he's soon to be blamed for the rising "despair suicide epidemic" (amazed he's
been spared blame for the opiate, fentanyl, epidemic)
It would be funny if they weren't deadly serious and if Gessen were not getting thumbs-up retweets and endorsements all over the place from
folks who should be wiser.
The autocratic Russian president, his oligarch allies and his intelligence services,
including the Federal Security Service (or FSB) and the GRU, recognized an emerging
perfect storm in America that included a convergence of the following:
A distrust in institutions and the news media.
The emergence of almost universal social-media usage.
The willingness to repeat outrageous rumors or fake news to help boost
personal social-media branding.
Political polarization and the accompanying emergence of information
bubbles, confirmation bias and echo chambers.
The metastasizing of the post-Watergate misconception that anyone can or
should be president, leading to the candidacy of a reality-show celebrity named
Trump. (Today's folksy "have a beer" qualification nearly supersedes other
qualifications.)
It rained today but I wanted sun ... the cynicism-inducing effects of the "revealed"
Obama and Clinton over the last decade not.worth.mentioning.
When you are owned by Wall Street and the Deep State you aren't concerned with trivial
things that the hoi polloi are dying to have.
If you want to see how the DNC reacted
to last November's total defeat take a look at Jon Ossoff, the guy chosen to run for Tom
Price's open seat in the 6th District of Georgia. Georgetown, Madeleine Albright, London
School of Economics, propaganda films. The only thing missing in his wikipedia bio is
when he signed up with the CIA I'm guessing it was sometime in high school.
The thing I find so insidious in this Russian conspiracy mongering is the underlying
helplessness, even defeatism, suggesting that -- "self evidently" -- Putin has already
won and we've already lost -- it suggests some upcoming apocalyptic ("which side are you
on") day-of-reckoning ... which I (perhaps erroneously) doubt reasonates with most folks
who long-ago turned off the fear-mongering press .. perhaps in favor of savoring the
present and being surprised when the end comes.
lol... good one b! sad kettle of fish for the american people and for the people of the
world with a political system that is the laughing stock of the world at this point..
It's always fun to hear Right-wing Cranks/Wannabe Masters Of The Universe blaming
someone else when one, or more, of their half-baked plots collapses under the weight of
the bullshit which made it seem like a good idea.
If Putin and the Russians are so diabolically clever and successful at subverting US
democracy that means that US intelligence agencies have been abject failures. Have any
heads rolled over these alleged massive intelligence failures? Rhetorical question.
"Salon's latest appears to blame America ennui and cynicism on deliberate putin
ploys ..."
_____________________________
Whether it's genuine Russophobia, or fake Party Line Russophobia, I've noticed that
it includes this thread of cultural "soft criticism".
That is, the US/EU/NATO infoganda artists-- Elected Misrepresentatives and state
mass-media consent manufactories-- have made "hard" allegations, albeit based on
insinuations and innuendo, that Russia's state-security apparatus has directly and
overtly "tampered with" election results, sponsored or colluded with hackers, cultivated
"fifth column" sympathizers and
de facto
operatives to nefariously influence
Western public opinion, etc.
But they also work in the "charge(s)" that the evil, pernicious Russkies have also
sought to undermine the public's faith and confidence in government and the electoral
process. The charlatans utter this indictment with the gravest, Churchillian high
dudgeon and self-righteousness.
How
dare
some "outsider" cast aspersions upon the paragons of Modern Democracy
represented by the US and EU hegemony! Surely,
any
radical criticism of these
governments and their policies and actions is implicitly false and meritless, and can
only
be understood and explained as an attempt to undermine and destroy appropriate
faith and trust in their political leadership!
Any discerning observer can see that this impassioned cri de cśur, stripped of its
high-flown rhetoric, amounts to whining, "Hey! Those damned Russkies are making us
look bad
!" It is to laugh!
This phenomenon induced a feeling of déjŕ vu. Of course, this complaint isn't novel.
Conservative Elders have traditionally excoriated iconoclasts for supposedly encouraging
social decay and "anarchy" by refuting Panglossian exceptionalism and exposing political
leaders' feet of clay.
Among other precedents, it reminds me of the 1970s reactionary criticisms of writers
like Kurt Vonnegut. Indignant wingnuts chastised writers like Vonnegut and Joseph Heller
for impermissibly "teaching Youth to be cynical about patriotism and democratic
institutions".
It's no surprise that "Salon", a progressive-liberal lite bastion, echoes this "soft"
authoritarian-submissive doctrine.
The democrat party is the same as it was before Trump got elected. The DNC are going to
maintain their establishment and wait for Trump and the REpublicans to fail miserably at
their jobs. I guess that is all they can do
Lavrov's recent lecture at Russia's Military Academy for the General Staff provided some
insights in to how Kremlin leaders view the Outlaw US Empire and its "slanderous"
campaign against Russia. Here's the passage most relevant to the current discourse:
"Question: Recent experience shows that, in terms of the damage they cause, aggressive
actions in the media at times have consequences similar to the use of weapons of mass
destruction. In your opinion, isn't it time, at the UN, in the format of bilateral ties
with other states, to move forward with drafting and signing a comprehensive treaty in
this field, similar to strategic arms limitation treaties?"
"Sergey Lavrov: We've been working on this for several years now. Russia put forward
an initiative that became known at the UN as International Information Security
[Initiative]. It has been a subject of independent resolutions at a number of UN General
Assembly sessions. While initially these resolutions were rejected by some of our
Western partners, in recent years resolutions related to the UN contribution to
international information security have been adopted unanimously.
"Several years ago, a group of government experts was set up. It drafted a report
that was approved by consensus at the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly
expressed support for continuing this effort in the context of identifying specific
cyberspace risks at present. Another government expert group was also formed, which is
beginning to work. It is meant to prepare specific proposals in one and a half years.
"I'd like to say right away that despite the apparently constructive participation of
all states in this discussion, we are aware of the desire [of certain states] to limit
themselves to discussions and not reach practical international legal agreements. So,
alongside the work that I just mentioned, Russia and its partners, in particular in the
SCO, have drafted a document entitled Code of Conduct for Cyberspace. It was also
distributed at the UN and is designed to promote targeted dialogue on the legal aspects
of this problem. Overall, we believe (and we have already submitted this proposal) that
it is time to draft an international convention on cyber security, including the
elimination of threats and risks related to hacking. We were the first to propose
penalising and banning hacking within the framework of international law. We will see
how those who are accusing Russian hackers of seeking to blow up the world in the style
of James Bond will respond to this.
"There is another important topic related to these issues. It concerns internet
governance. For several years now a discussion on the democratisation of the internet
and internet governance has been ongoing at the International Telecommunication Union. A
very serious ideological struggle, if you will, is under way. Some people are upholding
free market principles but there are also those who believe that farming out the
internet to the free market is tantamount to giving it away to just one country. In this
context, serious debate lies ahead.
"We see all these problems. The majority of countries agree on the need to enforce
some generally acceptable order. Focused work is under way but it is too early to expect
any results yet."
There are other points within the Q&A where this topic gets discussed further,
although within a somewhat different context than the above. Relative to Hybrid War,
Lavrov says: "An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition
for the media. This is an objective fact." Later in response to another question
regarding the defense of national interests, Lavrov replies:
"It's amazing to see how the media in the countries you mentioned and other EU
countries come up with absolutely fictional and, most importantly, inept, clumsily
written articles and reports about Russia's widespread influence on their electoral
processes. I would say they should be ashamed of having election systems they cannot
even protect from external interference. I am referring to such major countries as
Germany and France, not some small countries. Second, they do not offer a single fact.
We constantly remind them about it; President Vladimir Putin regularly communicates with
German politicians and business leaders. My German counterpart, German Foreign Minister
Sigmar Gabriel, has visited Russia recently. He met with President Putin and they had a
frank discussion of these issues. When you talk to them at our regular meetings, they
show no such fanaticism. But obviously, someone really wants this fanaticism to be
artificially maintained and whipped up. I could never imagine that these self-respecting
media outlets could sink so low – to flagrant slander without even bothering to provide
facts."
Anyone here read the
"Russian Democracy Act 2002"
enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of America?
Section 2, Finding and Purposes:
(3A)
Since 1992, United States Government democratic
reform programs and public diplomacy programs, including
training, and small grants have provided access to and training
in the use of the Internet, brought nearly 40,000 Russian
citizens to the United States, and
have led to the establishment
of more than 65,000 nongovernmental organizations
, thousands
of independent local media outlets, despite governmental
opposition, and numerous political parties
.
(Unquote)
More than 65.000 NG0s
established in Russia by the US-Government from
1999-2002? What a crazy number!
And how many more NGOs have been created there in the following 15 years till today? In
the tens of thousands the figure must be.
But how many NGOs have the Russians established in the West meanwhile (the West, not
only US)?
Its far less than a dozen, as far as I am know.
Hybrid war is somewhere between diplomacy and war. It is like being half-pregnant.
Hybrid war is never all-out war. Instead it tries to limit escalation into a real
war.
NATO's definition of Russian hybrid war arises from the short appearance of polite
people or the 50 or so unmarked green men at the Simferopol airport on February 28,
2014. Russia could naturally have sent in a whole tank division or moved its 15,000
troops on Crimea from their bases, but that could have resulted in a formal state of
war existing between the Russian Federation and the Maidan regime in Kiev. By leaving
out national identification markings Russia allowed Kiev to ignore the incident and
to maintain diplomatic ties.
The "Little Green Men" caused huge alarm and hysteria in NATO headquarters. They
were suddenly seen as a Russian miracle weapon that could threaten the security of
Western Europe. This of course is bullshit!
The window for the use of "Green Men" and other methods of hybrid warfare arises
from the internal weaknesses and conflicts of the target country. These by definition
cannot exist in an open society like the democratic West purports to be. The clear
exception is the Baltic apartheid states of Estonia and Latvia. They are not
democracies but more like ethnic dictatorships and U.S. protectorates.
Someone more informed on the NATO side wrote an article two years ago debunking
the whole narrative. He said that the "hybrid" threat of domestic insurrection as
seen in Estonia and Latvia cannot be countered by NATO security guarantees or
international intervention, but must be handled by local police and security forces
locally.
Western security looks different if one rejects the notion that Western
democracies are open societies and instead sees them as semi-dictatorships controlled
by the Anglo-American "Deep State" and by the the fake news and false narratives of
the mainstream media. In this scenario the election of Trump as president becomes an
act of Russian hybrid war. It was the result of hostile elements of Russian
information influence entering the U.S. information space. If one lives in a hybrid
war mentality, then everything the "enemy" does or may have done becomes and act of
hybrid war.
The link given by Susan Sunflower @5 proves the point. Bob Cesca of
Salon
is
totally delusional!
Russia declared war on the United States last year, and it's a war that continues
to be waged today...
Millions of our own people, millions of American voters on both sides of the aisle
were manipulated into acting as unwitting foot soldiers for Vladimir Putin's
invasion...
Trench by trench, Facebook group by Facebook group, Americans executed Putin's
attacks for him...
Trump was placed in office by Putin. But it only happened because millions of
Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants, undermining and
betraying their own country and their own democratic elections. Make no mistake:
Putin's attack was less about electing Donald Trump and more about turning Americans
against America. Whether you were suckered by Putin or voted for Trump based on fake
news, we all suffer from a skewed view of U.S. elections today. We're all more
suspicious about whether our elections are on the level, and we should be. Putin's
goal was to goad us into asking the perpetual question: How can we possibly trust the
outcomes of future elections knowing that Russia preselected our president years ago
and then set about guaranteeing that outcome by turning our people against us?
This is the next colossal problem to solve. Once we weed out Putin's quislings
inside the White House...
That many games being played... Political hacks working against Trump, many Presidential
appointments still unfilled, Trying to take out those around Trump and Trump himself and
concentrating on the fight against Russia.
Even though Trump was not the anointed, he still has qualities the P-nacker types can
work with. Those that write the constant updates to manifest destiny always have Iran
and North Korea in their sights.
If Trump cannot be removed he can be used to try and take out Iran and NK and also take
the blame for US boots in bodybags.
The partitioning of Syria is now going ahead to Rand Corp plans. This will give the US
control of a large amount of territory on Irans western border. US has already announced
it Will keep military forces in Iraq after ISIS is defeated. Genocide of the people of
Yemen is underway as US will need full control of Bab al-Mandab straight before
attacking Iran.
A couple of plays occurring? Political hacks will continue to try and
remove or restrict Trump, meantime the powers that be are moving forward with their
plans, simply adjusting them to Trump for the moment?
That's an excellent example of Cultural Imperialism. Russia is trying to
rid itself of those deemed detrimental to its sociocultural being. And Russia is far
from the only victim of such.
Something like that was listed on the US Russian embassy website about two
years ago
At that time the US Syrian embassy website, amongst other things where advertising
for American companies to supply and install oil infrastructure in rebel held parts of
Syria.
Most everything the US was doing around the world at that time was blandly in your
face listed on their various embassy websites, no tinfoil hat required.
Everyone seems to present this as a Putin v. U.S. war when, in fact, the Brits have been
much more vicious against Putin than the U.S. media. The real war here is Putin v. the
Rothschild cabal in its City of London. The U.S. and the CIA (CIA has no real U.S.
connection, works directly for the cabal) are just the present kneecappers for the
cabal.
For some readson i read all of that in Dany Devitos voice which made it all the more
funnier. But seriously their Focus on the russian "allegations" is just going to
strengthen Trump when the whole thing just blows up in their faces. It kind of reminds
me of the Situation back in 2008 when Obama was First elected and panicing republicans
called him a commie and claimed that he wad going to fuck up the country. I mean sure
they were right, but they could not have possibly known that then. The point is this
"ressistance" is a joke, and Trump will probably deliver the punchline soon enough
I keep thinking that this is all fanfare leading up to Hillary Clinton's moment of
triumphant return (or something) ... in which she will galvanize the party, which will
unify behind her and drive Trump and his minions from Washington (actual method and
details to be determined / unspecified) ... "like in a movie" or more likely Hillary's
"dream sequence"
It feels like the sort of noisy loud barking that's heard with over-anxious "guard
dogs", who would actually be willing and eager to be called off by their master, but
won't stop barking until given permission to stop ... or something.
Professional Putin hater Gessen is getting kudos galore for point out that the Putin
Trump conspiracy theory lacks evidence ... yes, I was glad for the NYRB piece ... but I
fear it may mean that she (and her Putin hating) will gain stature and credibility on
her next go-around ... Has Gessen displaced Applebaum temporarily? Pussy Riot has been
in the news again ... and I'm on the look out for some Michael Khodorkovsky update or
editorial, since like the seasons these things seem to follow one another and -- gosh --
Putin is up for reelection this year ... speaking of whom:
WAshington Times: Russian dissident hopes Trump will end Putin's power (03/08/2017)
.
TRUMP: increases sanctions on Russia.
TRUMP: expands wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria
TRUMP: dismantles environmental regulations.
TRUMP: kills worker protection, lowers billionaire taxes.
TRUMP: launches nuclear war with North Korea.
DEMOCRATS: sh*t ... Trump did our
homework ... "Trump's a russki-commie-pinko-faggot!"
whenever the demoblicans loose to the republicrats they make an end-run around them
on the right. only now that requires going out of bounds completely, over the edge and
into mccarthyism, jingo, fascism and ... shrill irrelevance.
confusing the democrat party with an opposition to the neolibraconians?
at this late stage in the 'game'?
there may be less than a dime's worth of difference between the repbublicrats and
demoblicans ... but the salaries of hundreds of thousands / millions of neolibraconian
hacks are on the line here ... and trump ain't hirin'!
what we need to do ... sez i ... is to organize and seriously start firin' ... there
are only 546 of them (537, the supremes are not yet elected)! there are 313 million of
us!
replace all the elephants and jackasses with ordinary americans chosen from among
ourselves.
it'll take a decade. no time like the present to begin.
no citizen denied her/his vote* for any reason => federal recall, referendum,
initiative.
* we citizens register ourselves, authorize and authenticate ourselves, run our
paper-ballot polls ourselves, count and store the results ourselves.
I think the only level of disregard that will move Democrats is to respond to their
every speech act with a call to literally commit seppuku. Anything else admits of a
continued need for them and their performative contrition Rollenspiel.
What is bullshit about it? The fact that Trump is a fraud and dismantling America
while rattling sabers at all and sundry abroad, or the fact that the DNC and its
sycophants blame Russia and Putin for, well, everything they dislike?
You have to ask? They're two corrupt sides of the same coin. I've been repeating
this for months now and getting nothing but abuse around here for it. Trump is a CON, a
snake oil salesman, i.e. a LIAR, a narcissist i.e. megalomaniac and everything is
unfolding as I was convinced it would.
One of Trumps first moves was to kill the TPP, something that would have put all
governments signed up to it under the control of the mostly US based multi-national
corporations ????
It's important to maintain perspective. The "big news" today was that Dick Cheney called
Russian meedling in the 2016 Elections an "act of war". McCain had said the same in
December but for Cheney to repeat that now - after little, if any, evidence of such
interference only shows (again) how much the establishment despises Trump.
Trump hate
is a blind alley. Purposely so. Promoting such thinking does a disservice. We see to
think about what comes after Trump (ike jfl above). IMO, a successful Movement that
returns power to the people is one that unites the principled left and principled right.
I think direct democracy can do that. I encourage everyone to explore the Pirate Party,
a Party that provides a form of direct democracy that makes a good start.
They're two corrupt sides of the same coin. I've been repeating this for months now
and getting nothing but abuse around here for it. Trump is a CON, a snake oil
salesman, i.e. a LIAR, a narcissist i.e. megalomaniac
I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I was asking "Sabine", who apparently
does not agree, what exactly is "bullshit" about pointing out the failings of Trump
and
the DNC crowd.
I hope that today's offering indicates "b" has let the scales fall from his eyes
regarding Trump and sees the guy for the nefarious danger he and his junta and Goldman
Sachs/corporate raider administration are to the United States and the world.
Anyone
who looks into Steve Bannon's background and reads his public comments and
still
thinks the Chump administration stands for peaceful trade and ending American
imperialism is a fool or an idiot.
It's important to understand what the establishment dislikes about Trump.
1) Trump is
NOT a proponent of
Assad must go!
.
Neocons and their ME sponsors reject any middle-ground/accommodation on Syria. They want
total victory for headchoppers because that eliminates Iranian influence and the
Hezbolla 'threat to Israel.
2) Trump is anti-TPP.
This trade deal is sold as the best way to contain China. But it is actually a means off
destroying sovereignty that strengthens the form of Empire that powerful "allies"
prefer.
3) Trump uses the power of his office to connect and communicate with people.
Obama scolded us and communicated when he had to. Trump trashes the media, former
Presidents, etc.
4) Drain the Swamp
Trump has instituted tough rules on lobbying. Washington doesn't care for rules that
constrain money-making.
Historical traditions should also be mentioned among the factors that determine a
nation's role in world politics. "History is the memory of States," said Henry
Kissinger, the theoretician and practitioner of international relations. By the way,
the United States, whose interests Mr Kissinger has always defended, did not aspire
to be the centre of the liberal world order for a greater part of its own fairly
short history, and did not see that role as its preeminent mission. Its Founding
Fathers wanted its leadership and exceptional nature to derive from its own positive
example. Ironically, the American elite, which emerged as freedom fighters and
separatists anxious to cast off the yoke of the British crown, had transformed itself
and its state by the 20th century into a power thirsting for global imperialist
domination. The world is changing, however, and – who knows – America might yet
purify itself and return to its own forgotten sources.
Excerpt from
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to questions
during a lecture for senior officers of the Military Academy of the General Staff,
Moscow, March 23, 2017
Why doesn't b just come right out and slam Trump and expose him in every sense for
the lying, pretender ass that he is? Right away, the title tells you who he's really
blaming; the title says nothing of Trump...but-but the buck stops with Trump. Every
criticism is couched by the Democrats are distracted by Russiagate, but isn't
everyone??? Which is the bigger elephant in the room: grandpa Trump's pretense at
respectability and more laughably, President, or Russia collusion?
Russia or no Russia Trump is disgusting. One Howard Stern interview is enough proof;
it's not rocket science for crying out loud! sleazy and corrupt does Washington,
specifically, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; that's the least of it.
...
4) Drain the Swamp
Trump has instituted tough rules on lobbying. Washington doesn't care for rules that
constrain money-making.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 28, 2017 11:51:20 PM | 37
Trump's inaugural Drain The
Swamp promise was no accident. It put The Swamp Club on notice which was unnecessarily
sporting of him considering their own tactics. He wouldn't have been so upfront about
his intentions if he hadn't already written the How To Drain the Swamp Manual long
before the Election. Anyone who thinks he expected a smooth run, after such a
confrontational start, isn't terribly bright; or grown-up.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to
keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty,
dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be
unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our
lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt
both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict
now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We
face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose,
and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite
duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and
transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward
steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex
struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation,
on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address, January 17, 1961.
Oh yeah Ike was a real authority on
peace in the world
, he only threatened
the Chinese with nuclear weapons and ordered the CIA to overthrow the
democratically-elected leader of Iran at the time to install the Shah and conspire with
the U.K. to steal Iranian oil and commit atrocities against the people of Iran. From
wiki:
He therefore authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Prime Minister
Mohammad Mosaddegh.[174] This resulted in an increased strategic control over Iranian
oil by U.S. and British companies.[175]
Such a nice guy! It's like I always say: actions speak louder than silver-tongued
words.
Also, I would like to say that if the practice of leaking information that
concerns not just the United States but also Russia, which has become a tradition in
Washington in the past few years, continues, there will come a day when the media
will publish leaks about the things that Washington asked us to keep secret, for
example, things that happened during President Obama's terms in office. Believe me,
this could be very interesting information.
h/t Zerohedge -- Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria , Moscow, March 23,
2017
Next door to the Lavrov speech @14 karlof1 (Thank you!)
Let's consider the possibility that Russia has fully penetrated the CIA (not a
stretch) (and by transposition the DNC) (laugh if you like) and actually DID run Trump
as a presidential stooge. Let's say that the US media accidentally stumbled upon the
theoretical truth that Snowden and Assange are in fact operating with/for Russia (who
pays their bills?) (Ecuador?)(Iran?)(Soros?)
Why would Russia agree to keep American secrets as Zakharova implies, and what do we
think of the threat of Russia revealing the dirt it has on the MOBama administration? Is
Russia playing the USG or is it a pointed insinuation to make fun of the Russophobia?
Elsewhere in her remarks, Zakharova refers to the assassination in Kiev:
Note that she condemns Ukraine's reflexive finger-pointing at Moscow yet she herself
asserts evidence that it was a contract killing to send a message. How would she know?
What evidence? What message?
The Russians are a sophisticated yet ruthless bunch. Their theme of taking the high
road and pointing their condescending finger at anyone who accuses them is fairly
consistent. I still wouldn't dismiss the idea that they are in fact pulling some strings
along with Turkey, the Saudis, the Izzies, etc. or were they played? The Clintons
harvested a lot of cash from folks that wanted favor in the new administration, if you
believe the Guccifer leaks. So many leaks, ship sinks, rats swim.
Evidence suggests it was a contract killing that, by all indications, was meant to
send a message. As soon as the media reported this assassination Moscow hoped that
Ukrainian law enforcement agencies would be able promptly to solve this crime and
identify the masterminds behind it and of course its perpetrators, without any
politicisation[sic] and based on objective data. However, after Ukrainian President
Poroshenko announced that this assassination was "an act of terror perpetrated by
Moscow," naturally, there was no more hope left that the investigation would be
impartial or objective. We have no doubt about that. By all indications, this time as
well the "killer regime" (as it is already being referred to) will do its best to
make sure that no one will ever know the truth about what happened in Kiev.
karlof1@14 - Lavrov understands my country better than I do - I always enjoy being
educated by him. I have to say that there was one zinger at the very end:
What will
Russia do about that girl they won't let in Eurovision?
Now I know this has outraged
many Russians (and rightfully so), but to put this question to the Russian Foreign
Minister after THAT lecture? If I were him, I would have said with the most deadpan face
I could muster, "We have not taken the option of a pre-emptive nuclear strike off the
table at this time." and than just walked off the stage.
The Eisenhower quote put up by stumpy is interesting... US ingrained culture, manifest
destiny, exceptional people ect.
In looking up the various missiles systems and
aircraft over the last few years, something starts to stand out.
Since WWII Soviet, and now Russian design perimeters are guided by keeping the US out.
US designs always have had the base perimeter of breaking through Soviet and now Russian
defence systems.
US culture is based on total aggression to any who do not bow to its power.
No matter the US president is a nationalist or a globalist, this culture will continue
until it is destroyed
Enjoy the theater folks.. Blaming Russia for all that's evil in the world, instead of
speaking up for the workers in the U$A, is the Dems newest plan. Trump was elected
because he ran as a progressive. We know now, he has no interest in such foolishness.
Both parties are the parties of $, and will further the interests of corporate America,
over the interests of the people. That means " Full Spectrum Dominance."
Trump haters don't talk about what comes after Trump.
A BIG clue as to what
motivates them.
Here's a big clue: A jackass who doesn't have to pretend he's not one ergo we can all
rally to kick his ass. The thing about Trump is that those who used to fight on the good
side moved to the dark side when they were reeled in by Trump.
So who cares who comes after Trump as long as we all go back to fighting in
solidarity the enemy that Trump represents and his successor from the right or left
aisle will surely represent as well.
Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 12:39:28 AM | 39
I won't go as far as disagreeing
with you about Trump, but I would ask the obvious question given you are just so
relentlessly anti-Trump.
Logically that means a few things.
1. You would have preferred Hillary Clinton won the Election and became President.
If you reject that assertion then please remove the scales from your eyes - there was
no other choice -
it was Clinton or Trump
. No one else was going to win that
election, saying
"I don't like either"
isn't an answer and is a failure to
acknowledge reality.
2. You would like Mike Pence to step up and take over from Trump (because Trump is
so awful he must be replaced asap).
Pence is the only person who is going to replace Trump - so logically you would
prefer a President Pence to Trump. Fair enough - but is that really your view? Or is
your view that they're all awful and we'd be better off with Jill Stein? Or Ralph Nader?
Or Ross Perot? Rand Paul? Who? Doesn't matter anyway - because it is again evidence that
you are living in a place detached from reality if your argument is NO TRUMP, NO PENCE -
someone else!
Nope. Forget it.
At the moment your choice is Trump (or Pence) - no one else. So clarify again for me
- you prefer Pence then?
If your answer to all of the above is No, No, No, No, No, we need
someone else
I'm afraid it is completely pointless to argue with you -
What are YOU going to do
about it?
Because I sure as hell am not going to try and find a way to get someone else
installed besides Trump, or Pence. Just how would one go about doing that anyway? Not
worth thinking about as far as I'm concerned.
It's called living in an alternate reality, and perhaps it's best if you retire to
Patagonia and live out your fantasies far far away from anyone else who might deign to
interrupt you.
Re: Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 29, 2017 1:32:00 AM | 48
It's interesting isn't it.
Trump haters logically want to see President Mike Pence.
But why this yearning for Pence? On the face of it it would appear that given their
complaints about Trump Pence would be even more odious to them, but yet - Pence is
exactly what they want!
- The Democrats are looking more and more stupid every day. Keep in mind, I don't get
the impression that Trump has the best in mind for the US Joe sixpack as well.
Circe you throw tantrums without putting up alternatives. Much like my daughters when
they were in a huff.
Sniff some salts, fan your face, you'll be right.
You're ad homs for lack of an argument are predictable. If you have nothing better
to write don't *remove all doubt*. You know the saying: better to keep your trap shut
and be thought a fool than open it up and...**
Miss/Mrs Circe... by your username I take it you identify as female?
Address Julian's
questions. Who would you prefer as head warmonger
A) Clinton
B) Trump
C) Pence
Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.
For me, I would like to see the US and its culture of manifest destiny totally
destroyed. I cannot see that happening in the foreseeable future unless they initiate
mutual assured destruction.
Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 2:32:19 AM | 57
Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29,
2017 3:14:57 AM | 61
D eh. Once again you fail to answer a simple question. Your response is pointless. It
lacks a basis in reality.
There is no D option. Are you the D option. You seem to think so.
My point is that its better to fight the system together than divided by a worthless
shit like Trump!
And how exactly are you fighting this system? Writing a few sentences on someone's
(admittedly GREAT! Blog) ain't going to get you very far.
Thanks for the support Peter. I don't think anyone here who supported Trump (over
Clinton) was under the illusion Trump was going to be a "Great" President by any stretch
of the imagination.
But it was fairly simple - do you want the proven warmongering maniac, or the
egotistical narcissist?
Easy choice for mine - and like you Peter, I don't get to vote in US Elections so I
could hardly make my voice heard at a US ballot box.
For the record, speaking as someone with libertarian leanings, Rand Paul was my
initial choice in the US Primaries Republican/ Democrat. Rand seems eminently sensible
on foreign policy issues. Stop expanding NATO, leave the Middle East. Of course Rand
(like his father) is roundly ignored by the MSM most of the time.
Rand even jumped on Tulsi Gabbard's Stop Arming Terrorists Act! Good move for your
credibility Rand, bad move if you want higher office.
Re: Posted by: Lozion | Mar 29, 2017 3:32:11 AM | 63
I assume D means none of the above as well, but provide the alternative then - a
realistic alternative. As far as I can see - there is no D alternative being offered at
the moment in
reality
.
Oh, lord. You people ganging up on Circe again? It's beneath your normally good
commentary. Irritatingly so.
Circe's expectations about Trump have so far proven
correct. Many of you -- INCLUDING ME! -- who hoped to see more sensible behavior from
Trump must admit you're disappointed.
So far, it seems I -- and many of you -- owe Circe "you told me so". (*Not* like it
would've made me change my vote from "Jill Stein" to "Killary" just to try to keep Trump
out of office.)
>> It's interesting isn't it. Trump haters logically want to see President Mike
Pence.
You're not using logic. You're mocking it.
I, for one, abhor Trump's decisions thus far. Do you really think it's a matter of
"logic" that I would prefer Pence's?
That argument is embarrassing.
>> Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.
People are free to condemn what Trump does without being obligated to "choose" a
veritable "s*** sandwich" from your "replacement menu".
But more importantly, stay civil! I choose to lurk because I rarely have anything
(other than "thumbs up" to practically everything from jfl or psychohistorian). But, I
read comments fairly regularly and have seen very little hostility from Circe -- except
for maybe one understandable comment as a reaction to constant harassment -- that would
justify this antagonism, Peter AU.
In the mean-time we have the Ecuador run-off Presidential Election this week. Sunday
April 2, 2017.
Pro-Assange
Lenin Moreno
Anti-Assange
Guillermo Lasso
Easy choice for mine. Go Lenin.
Then we have the French Election (April-June 2017). Viva Le Pen (Destroyer of the
EU).
The German Elections (September 2018). A total non-event. Schulz v Merkel - both as
bad as each other.
The Russian Elections (March-April 2018). Putin to be re-elected assuming he stands.
The Italian Elections (By May 2018). Can Beppe Grillo win and take Italy out of the
Euro and thereby destroy the Europeon project? Perhaps, but I don't trust Grillo as much
as Le Pen.
Unfortuntely, if Le Pen loses, Grillo might be the last hope for a sane resolution to
all that ails the world (The West) at the moment.
If things continue going to plan I foresee Russia/Putin shutting down all gas
supplies to the EU either Winter 2018/19 or Winter 2019/20.
At that point, the election season is completed, and why bother extending chance
after chance for the Europeons to wise up? Plus, the TurkStream and pipes to China will
be completed by then.
That's my estimate of when Russian patience with the EU runs out anyway.
The only question then becomes, does the West collapse economically before then?
Perhaps, but I see no reason they can't just continue with the tricks of the last
decade for another 2 years.
Dumbass, come up with an alternative
narrative.
JFL and psychohistorian I have respect for, but I do feel their alternatives are
dreamtime stuff.
What we see is the real world. Human nature at its "finest".
Constant revolution is perhaps the most applicable to the real world though perhaps
not in the intention of the originator.
1.
the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party's central
committee
,
2. two hundred members apportioned among the states based on population and generally
elected either on the ballot by primary voters or
by the state Democratic Party
committee
,
3.
a number of elected officials serving in an ex officio capacity
, and
4. a variety of
representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies
.
1. public enemies of the jackass persuasion numbers 1 through 100 ...
2. like to see the breakdown of 'elected' / appointed ... even when elected, elected by
their cronies, no one else knows who they are ...
3. political hacks given sinecures ... the 'grateful dead' ...
4. lobbyists for wall street, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial
complex, the medical industrial complex, the 'intelligence community', enemies of the
people in general ...
don't imagine these folks will be resigning. they're just killing off the hired hands
... they're the ones who 'ate our homework!' ... right ... the hh's will be replaced by
interchangable clones. the dnc are dead men and women walking. and talking, of course.
@43
probably a false-flag by the googleplex itself, an alibi for discontinuing
'extremist' postings. 'hey, it's not us! it's our advertizers ... it's just bidnez,
g-o-i ...'
Prior to Trumps election, The US/globalist fellow travelers were all walking along
nicely. Trump usurped the throne from the anointed one and now the fellow travelers are
arguing.
Some say Trump will take us to a few places on our bucket list, others say say- no Trump
has to go.
the reason i consdier this post to be a load of bullshit is simple.
the democratic party is so diminised it has not effect on anything the orange turd
and his henchmen do.
So they can whinge about what ever they want to.
secondly: in general the US American Jane and Joe Do don't give a flying fuck about
war. Its the only thing they have going for the, the million plus peoples army of the US
and the weapons manufactures. If they don't have the army and the weapons company US
unemployemnt would be through the roof and there would be rioting in the streets. Can
you imagine the orange turd bringing home his troops from anywhere in Europe if they
'don't pay his bill for Nato"?
thridly: many of us predicted precisely that. Namely that the orange turd will do as
any other US president did before him, war oversees and weapons selling. But oh noes, he
is gonna be besties with Putin (who will win the election cause anyone else running will
be dead by the time people get to put their fingerprints on a piece of paper)
fourth: i find it funny how many here over the years are ok with foreign influence in
the US election, obviously its ok now to just delegitimze the last little bit of
'influence' people get to have in their countries.
fifth: i no more rejoice in the forth coming misery for the US American women and
children then i do in the ongoing misery for the women of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon,
Yemen, Gaza, Westbank, Somalia.
and as another poster said above, there was no real choice for teh US, there was
Hillary with all her faults, and then there was the orange turd.
as for 'sabine' i have used my name as a handle since the time of billmon. and
frankly this blog is going to shite. Sadly so.
Lavrov's speech to the military academy sits in nicely behind Putin's speech to the UN
Assembly a couple of years ago. Writing the global script with openness, clarity and
integrity.
Makes a great sequel due to the ease and detail of which Lavrov breaks down
each and every question. Nothing mealy mouthed as you might expect from a US state
department press outing...from the top down the Russians' believe in what they say, mean
what they say, and do not mince words because its so much easier to give quick, detailed
and direct answers when they are guided by truth and not a forked tongue.
From him you get a sense that today's Russia has very much evolved from a deep
appreciation of it's history and, in a typically strong yet understated fashion, very
much understands it's place within it. All the while the west embarrasses itself under
the weight of repeatedly failing realities.
...the difference between a politician and a statesman.
aaaa 13
"It's still rock and roll to me." - Billy Joel
In the case of the DEMs, it's all about politics and winning. (and not much diff to the
GOP). For FDR and the DEMs in 1932 it was more important to let more of the economy (and
banks) fail to have a more spectacular loss for Hoover and the GOP. (The Roosevelt Myth)
And now the DEMs and the media sycophants are more shrill. Their one-trick pony
obsession is Putin (riding a horse without his shirt - ha ha). If they cannot stand up
for anything else, it's about time those in the party notice and change things.
The surprise of FDR was to find out he had no real ideology and simply took on people
whose ideas sounded good. Otherwise it was the political machines of NYC, Chicago, and
the unions (some dominated by Communists) that propelled him into higher office. He
wanted to win and that was all that counted.
Russian private money has also played a role in Trump's career. Though Trump has said
repeatedly that he has never invested in Russia, Russia has invested in him.
Famously, Donald Trump Jr. declared in 2008 that Russian money made up a "pretty
disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets." More recently, a Reuters
investigation showed that holders of Russian passports invested at least $98 million
into seven Trump properties in Florida alone, a number that doesn't include any
investors who hid their names behind anonymous shell companies.
Technically, none of this money had anything to do with the Russian state. But in
practice, it likely won goodwill and influence for Russia. Over many years, and long
before he became president, Trump repeatedly praised Russia and its president. In
2007, he declared that Putin is "doing a great job." In 2015, he described the
Russian president as a "man so highly respected within his own country and beyond."
Just like Deripaska's payments to Manafort, the "disproportionate" Russian
investments in Trump's businesses, which Trump still owns, weren't bribes. They
didn't involve the KGB, and they probably didn't include any secret payments either.
The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this
particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the
question "was this all legal," because it probably was. Congress, or an independent
investigator, needs to find a way to ask, "was this moral," because it surely wasn't,
and "does it constitute undue influence," which it surely does.
Apparently Congress will need to parse the morality of all Russian dealings with, oh
hell, about everyone everywhere ... she's implicating pretty much the entire Russian
Business class as Putin's water carrying agents of influence ... regardless, in this
climate, this appears to be something resembling "a voice of reason and moderation" (or
at least goal posts and some definitions of the 5 questoins -- who, what, why, where,
when --variety)
@2 The long term effects of recruiting self funding non entities are at play too. Many
of these Democrats were recruited at lower levels because they were bland enough to not
offend local interests and had the money to upfront the funding for their campaign.
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders wasn't entrusted with the budget and veteran
committee select spots because he is such a shining star or has leverage with the
caucus, he's not joining the GOP. He holds those positions because the Democrats don't
have people interested or even capable of those jobs serving in Congress. Russia is a
convenient refrain. They know voters want answers, and a good portion of the elected
Democrats know so little about policy they can't possibly offer answers.
The US is whining about how Russia dealt with 100s of people attending unlicensed
demonstrations in Russia. Russians are pussies when it comes to dealing with protestors.
This is how the US does it.
US have just accepted Montenegro as a coming member of NATO, you guys think that Nato
will come to formally accept Montenegro on the Nato meeting on 31 of march?
/~~~~~~~~~~
Zero Hedge -- ACLU Actively Assisting With Soros-Driven Protest Organization After
Accepting Funds From The Open Society Institute -- Mar 6, 2017
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-06/aclu-...
The ACLU itself has received
massive amounts of funding from George Soros. A February 6th, 2017 article from
Zerohedge cited research from LifeZette and the Capital Research Center indicating that
Soros's Open Society Institute has sunk over $35 million into the ACLU alone and
millions more to other liberal organizations directly involved in filing lawsuits
against various policies of Donald Trump all around the country. The massive donation
drive is part of Soros' overall effort to "reshape the American justice system" by
buying district attorneys in races across the country.
\~~~~~~~~~~
On March 11, the ACLU is holding a Resistance Training. This event will launch People
Power, the ACLU's new effort to engage grassroots volunteers across the country and take
the fight against Donald Trump's policies not just into the courts, but into the
streets. We're organizing grassroots events in communities across the country to watch
the livestream together. Please join us!
Sign up to learn more about People Power and the Resistance Training livestream on
March 11 at 5pm ET. We'll follow up with you about opportunities to volunteer and attend
events near you.
\~~~~~~~~~~
So. George Soros gives the ACLU $35 million and they promptly "take the fight against
Donald Trump's policies not just into the courts, but into the streets". Of course, if
they dispose of Trump, we get -- Mike Pence as president. He would be so much better?
Consider:
Vice President Mike Pence voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, which called for the
use of military force in Iraq.
Pence went on a widely condemned trip with Senator John McCain to Iraq in 2007.
In a 2002 statement on the floor of the House of Representatives (reported in the
Congressional Record), Pence told his colleagues "... I also believe that someday
scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a
remotely rational explanation for the known universe."
"[Indiana governor] Mike Pence's time in office has been so toxic that Hoosier
Republicans are publicly begging Donald Trump to save their party," [by getting him out
of Indiana] said Drew Anderson, [Indiana Democratic] communications director.
I've given up complaining about Circe. Maybe he works for Soros, or is Soros' grandson.
Or something. Nearly constant single complaint, no alternatives discussed.
Can't you just leave it at your comment @84 rather than wasting a separate post
just to personally attack me by taking a cheap shot with bullshit speculation? You just
had to back-up the other 2 offenders; makes you feel big, huh?
@70
Yes I have posted my political preferences and leadership preferences that don't
include any of the choices you listed. Either you weren't paying attention or you just
don't give a damn what I think. I suspect it's the latter, since you pay too much
attention as obviously you never fail to deliver with your ad homs each and every time I
comment on a topic and you disagree with what I write. I don't have to repeat what I
posted previously to live up to your standards or pass some kind of litmus test to meet
with your approval.
Here's the acceptable viewpoints as near as I can tell,
1) it's infallible truth that there's no substance to the awful rumors that the Trump
team and the Putin team may have colluded prior to the election.
2) Putin has been a beacon of integrity and forthrightness with no desire for
anything but the nations of the world to live in harmony.
3) Trump is really on the same page as Putin but the evil forces of the deep state
try mightily to derail his plans for our betterment
4) any attempt at free trade is inherently evil, the machinations of that cabal that
seeks to rule the world
5) we should accept Trump simply because there's nobody that can do any better.
If you stick to these the no one will flame you. If you don't then you work for Soros.
Yeah, fucking right, Trump's the man. we should learn to love him.
1) love how he's pouring troops and assets into the ME
2) accept that climate change is bullshit and cheer the deregulation that is
currently taking place
3) accept that the bankers aren't so bad and realize that the regulations placed on
them had to go because they were really hurting business and consequently their plans
for making America great
4) accept that Latinos are the root of many of America's problems and cheer the zeal
with which they are being rounded up
5) accept that the poor have only themselves to blame and applaud the way their
safety net is being dismantled
Because Trump likes Putin and Putin likes Trump and that's all that really matters. Well
suck me dry and call me Dusty, how could anybody not see that?
Ad hom straight off?
Choices...action...habit...character.
>> Dumbass, come up with an alternative narrative.
Your "narrative" thus far is to make the same pitch the 2-party duopolists make:
choose from the shitty choices we give you. History proves the governments' imperialist
policies do not change from one administration/party to another. So, I choose options
not on your list. I'm not changing my "narrative" to accommodate your dogmatism.
>> What we see is the real world.
Real world? Your choices are not even "real". Here they were:
>> Address Julian's questions. Who would you prefer as head warmonger
>> A) Clinton
>> B) Trump
>> C) Pence
>> Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.
Those aren't even "real world" choices. They're your own artificial, limited
construct. Another election isn't until 2020. Clinton may or may not run. Your choices
are stupid and contradict your self-professed "real world" pragmatism.
By the way, saying your choices are "stupid" and that you contradict yourself isn't
ad hominem, though judgments about your comment quality might lead people to draw
inferences about you personally.
There're no grounds for that supposition. All Putin and Lavrov have stated is their
willingness to work with whomever was elected. Mr Lavrov just again in an interview
published today, 3/29, in
National Interest Magazine
: "We said what we did, that
we are ready to work with any administration, any president who would be elected by the
American people. This was our line throughout the electoral campaign, unlike the acting
leaders of most European countries who were saying absolutely biased things, supporting
one candidate, unlike those who even bluntly warned against the choice in favor of the
Republican candidat[sic], and this somehow is considered normal."
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2710445
It is worse than just Pence. It goes Pence, Speaker Ryan, president pro tempore
box turtle McConnell, and then Exxon Sec. State Tillerman. And eventually in the
cabinet, you would get to Ben Carson. Jesus wept...
C'mon Peter. A, Clinton is NOT an option at all. Unless the entire
government is overthrown to install her. See my comment above re succession. There is no
'reset' to give her the election. Surely you know this, so why are you trying to make
Clinton an option for Circe?
IMO Pence will be an order of magnitude worse than Trump. He will be
piously waving his bible while screwing the people of the US more than can be imagined,
as he knows all the crazies in Congress and agrees with the most disgusting views of the
right wing. He will be more effective in our destruction.
"b" dude, maybe your playing to your crowd here and cha-ching and all that...but
Blowhard Chump and the MSM's crazed rantings about him just aren't that interesting. Ya
know? He's not going to bring world peace, detente with Russia or make America great
again. Probably quite the opposite. And the media will continue to focus on him and
ignore the many failings of the Demosplats et al. Move on is my advice.
Look, I don't like Clinton/Obama, neoliberalism, "free trade" agreements etc. BUT I
don't like Trump either. If you thought Obama was bad how can you like Chump? He's a
fucking liar and an über-capitalist piece of shit who takes his orders from Darth Bannon.
Fuck em' all I say. I am not a Soros agent btw. (but if I was I probably wouldn't tell
ya...heheheheh)
I also think Trump is "better", or at least less terrible, than Pence,
McCain/Graham, Hillary or any of the demented fanatics and war mongers waiting in the
wings. So while I don't like the guy or his junta/corporate raider administration
impeaching him is not cool. And the "Russia did it" crap is seriously insane and there
is no evidence Putin "threw" the election.
The people holding a candle for Chump are like the morons who still maintain O'Bomber
did good things for America and the world. You are the other side of that particular
coin. That's what you get when you meed a hero figure to worship.
"... Someone is accused of foiling the neocon plot to start WWIII. Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign dictator! Oh my!! we do get AIPAC in our elections! And Riyadh pay for play ..."
Someone is accused of foiling the neocon plot to start
WWIII. Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign
dictator!
Oh my!! we do get AIPAC in our elections! And Riyadh pay for play
Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign power to
hack
O my someone helped Assange, someone is accused of putting truth about the CONARTISTS
in DNC to the American people
"... CNN is the so-called news network that gave questions to Hillary Clinton during the debate. So we shouldn't really take them seriously. When it comes to laughing matters, they are now the laughing stock of the news world ..."
On Friday, WikiLeaks
released
a batch of documents detailing CIA hacking tactics and
how the US agency can divert forensic investigators from attributing
viruses, trojans and hacking attacks to the spy agency. One of the
documents revealed that the framework supports the ability to "
add
foreign languages
" to malware, listing Chinese, Russian and
Korean in the example code, indicating the potential for the CIA to
focus attention on another party to be blamed for the hack.
CNN,
however, decided to not cover the story, Gaunt told RT.
"
CNN is the so-called news network that gave questions to
Hillary Clinton during the debate. So we shouldn't really take them
seriously. When it comes to laughing matters, they are now the
laughing stock of the news world
," the British commentator and
politician said.
"... in their quest to find a connection - particularly some sort of direct conspiracy between Trump and Putin - some liberals are abandoning good sense and becoming credulous toward nutty thinkers. ..."
"... I'm reminded in a way of the Second Red Scare. The era of Joseph McCarthy is rightly remembered as a time of deranged witch hunts and fevered anti-Communist paranoia. ..."
"... In other words, the defining characteristic of McCarthyism was not a false belief that KGB spies had infiltrated the government, because they had. It was paranoia and hysterical panic about such spying, especially in how it was used to further partisan Republican ends. McCarthy was a fool and an incompetent drunk, but other Republican elites tolerated him and his accusations because he whipped up unhinged outrage against Democratic Party elites and policies. ..."
"... They loved it when he was falsely smearing Dean Acheson and George Marshall as secret Soviet sympathizers, or slagging public housing bills as the first step to Communism. It was only when McCarthy's erratic, diseased thinking, his constant lying and fabrication, and his utter investigative incompetence became undeniable that they began to desert him. ..."
"... A corollary of this is that McCarthy was an active impediment to anti-espionage efforts. During the Red Scare, it's possible his various lists of supposed Communists included a small fraction of actual Soviet spies . But what tiny truth was there was swamped by the huge number of innocents caught up in the panic. What's more, after McCarthy's downfall the whole idea of Soviet infiltration of the American government was badly tainted by association with his vile methods. ..."
"... Now, liberals' Trump-Russia fever is not remotely as bad as what struck Republicans during the McCarthy era. There is no full-blown panic, nor any show trials. Yet there is an echo of the basic mechanics. Instead of a Wisconsin senator, we have Louise Mensch, a former Conservative MP and bug-eyed conspiracy hound who has been all over cable news making one unsubstantiated accusation after another - and even somehow got a piece in The ..."
An awful lot of American liberals have become rather possessed by the possibility that President
Trump is somehow in league with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The circumstantial evidence that
there is
some
sort of connection is rather strong - Putin very probably helped Trump win in
2016, some Trump associates have a rat's nest of connections with Russia, and Trump himself has been
relying on financing from Eastern Europe for many years.
But definitive proof has yet to surface. So
in their quest to find a connection - particularly
some sort of direct conspiracy between Trump and Putin - some liberals are abandoning good sense
and becoming credulous toward nutty thinkers.
It's important to avoid this not only because clear thinking is important, but because it is the
best way to root out the truth.
I'm reminded in a way of the Second Red Scare. The era of Joseph McCarthy is rightly remembered
as a time of deranged witch hunts and fevered anti-Communist paranoia.
Something that is a bit less
remembered is that the Soviet Union did indeed have
extensive espionage
success
within the American government, particularly during the Second World War. They penetrated
the Manhattan Project, they scooped up all manner of non-nuclear weapons technology, they recruited
one of the very top
economic
policy officials
in the country, and on and on.
In other words, the defining characteristic of McCarthyism was not a false belief that KGB spies
had infiltrated the government, because they had. It was
paranoia and hysterical panic
about
such spying, especially in how it was used to further partisan Republican ends. McCarthy was a fool
and an incompetent drunk, but other Republican elites tolerated him and his accusations because he
whipped up unhinged outrage against Democratic Party elites and policies.
They loved it when he was
falsely smearing Dean Acheson and George Marshall as secret Soviet sympathizers, or slagging public
housing bills as the first step to Communism. It was only when McCarthy's erratic, diseased thinking,
his constant lying and fabrication, and his utter investigative incompetence became undeniable that
they began to desert him.
A corollary of this is that McCarthy was an active impediment to anti-espionage efforts. During
the Red Scare, it's possible his various lists of supposed Communists included a small fraction of
actual Soviet spies
. But what tiny truth
was there was swamped by the huge number of innocents caught up in the panic. What's more, after
McCarthy's downfall the whole idea of Soviet infiltration of the American government was badly tainted
by association with his vile methods.
(As an aside, it's important to note that all of this is orthogonal to the question of whether
Soviet spying necessitated a hyper-belligerent
diplomatic
stance towards the USSR. All countries
spy, America very much included, and in the end all the espionage probably didn't amount to much
- indeed, it may have
actually calmed tensions
somewhat.)
Now, liberals' Trump-Russia fever is not remotely as bad as what struck Republicans during
the McCarthy era. There is no full-blown panic, nor any show trials. Yet there is an echo of the
basic mechanics. Instead of a Wisconsin senator, we have Louise Mensch, a former Conservative MP
and
bug-eyed
conspiracy hound
who has been all over cable news making one unsubstantiated accusation after
another - and even somehow got
a piece
in
The
New York Times
. And she is only the most prominent of a
cottage industry of instant
Russia "experts"
who have sprung up to
write long tweet threads and create infographics in Microsoft Paint
validating liberals' darkest
suspicions about Trump.
... ... ...
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at
TheWeek.com
. His work has
appeared in the
Washington Monthly
,
The New Republic
, and the
Washington Post
.
David Remnick
,
b. 1958, was Moscow bureau chief 1988-1992 for
The Washington Post
,
before he moved to the magazine. In 1998 he was named its editor.
Lenin's
Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire
won a Pulitzer Prize in 1993.
Evan Osnos
, b. 1976, joined
the magazine from
The Chicago Tribune
in 2008 and covered China for five
years.
Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China
appeared in 2014 and was a Pulitzer finalist.
Joshua Yaffa
is
a journalist based in Moscow. He has written for
The Economist
and
The New York Times Magazine
.
Nothing in the article –
Active Measures: What lay behind Russia's interference in the 2016 election – and
what lies ahead
? – was quite as punchy as the art that accompanied it. The
magazine's traditional anniversary cover featured Vladimir Putin, as a dandy
peering through a monocle at a raging butterfly Trump, instead of the customary
rendering of
Eustace Tilley
. That was non-committal enough, though it reminded me of the
magazine's 2014
Sochi Olympics cover
, a figure-skating Vladimir Putin leaps while five little
Putin lookalikes feign disinterest from the judges' stand.
More alarming was the
art
opposite the opening page, Saint Basil's Cathedral, in Moscow,
administering a jolt of light (a digital illumination ray?) to the White House
from the skies above. The caption states, "Democratic National Committee hacks,
many analysts believe, were just a skirmish in a larger war against Western
institutions and alliances."
The article was organized in five little chapters.
In "Soft Targets," Putin orders an unprecedented effort to interfere in the
US presidential election. It is a gesture of disrespect, ordered out of pique
and resentment of perceived US finagling in the 2012 Soviet election, intended
to be highly public.
In "Cold War 2.0," the Obama administration is caught flat-footed by the
campaign and fails to respond effectively. The Russians have adopted a new and
deeply troubling offensive posture "that threatens the very international
order," a former Obama official states.
In "Putin's World," a capsule history of the decline of Russian pride during
the 1990s is presented alongside an argument for the expansion of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization. Putin's mistrust of democracy at home is
described, as well as his recoiling from the US invasion of Iraq. Differences
between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama after the annexation of Crimea are
recounted: she sometimes favors the use of military force whereas he does not.
In "Hybrid War," Russia becomes technically adroit at cyberwarfare and
experiments with a digital blitz on Estonian communications after a statue of a
Soviet soldier is removed; meanwhile the US unleashes its Stuxnet computer
virus on Iran's uranium refinery operations. The Russian Army chief of staff,
Valery Gerasimov, is introduced, along with his 2013 article,
The Value of Science Is in the Foresight
, urging "the adoption of a Western
strategy," combining military, technological, media, political and intelligence
tactics to destabilize a foe, the article having "achieved the status of
legend" as the Gerasimov doctrine, following the invasion of Ukraine. An
estimated thousand code warriors are said to be working for the Russian
government on everything from tapping former Undersecretary of State Victoria
Nuland's cell phone in Kiev ("a new low in Russian tradecraft") to the
forthcoming French and German elections. Finally, the hacking campaign against
the Democratic Party is rehashed, and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta
says the interaction between Russian intervention and the FBI "created a vortex
that produced the result" – a lost election.
In "Turbulence Theory," Trump is said to be a phenomenon of America's own
making, like the nationalist politicians of Europe, both the consequence of
globalization and deindustrialization, but Russia likes the policies that are
the result: leave Russia alone and don't talk about civil rights. Meanwhile,
the hacking campaign may have backfired, and Trump may no longer have the
freedom to accommodate Russian ambitions as might have been wished, but at
least Russia has come up with a way to make up for its economic and
geopolitical weakness, namely inflict turbulence on the rest of the world.
Three things about this assessment stand out.
Putin's views of US foreign policy are not integral to the account: they are
presented in two widely separate sections, one on the history of US "active
measures," the other on changes in his opinion wrought by the war in Iraq.
Putin is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, the authors write, but his
opinions, and those of others, especially who compare the invasions of Crimea and
Iraq (where the US immediately set out to build an embassy for 15,000 workers) are
dismissed as "whataboutism
,"
exercises in false moral
equivalence. NATO expansion is more or less taken for granted. The military
alliance's extension to the borders of Russia forms no part of the narrative.
Second, no attention is paid to Putin's problems, aside from a nod to his
suppression of oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the rock group Pussy Riot. His
plans for a Eurasian Union, which were at the heart of the Ukraine crisis, go
unmentioned. There's nothing about the centuries-old struggle between
Westernizers and Slavophiles who oppose policies that would tie Russia more
closely to the West.
Third, the history of the Cold War itself gets short shrift. The genesis of the
doctrine of "hybrid war," ascribed to Gen. Gerasimov, is described at length in
The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense
Strategy
, by Andrew F. Krepinevich and, Barry D. Watts (Basic Books, 2015).
Marshall founded the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment. In 1973 he described
what would become a dramatic strategic shift:
In general we need to look for opportunities as well as problems; search for
areas of comparative advantage and try to move the competition into these
areas; [and] look for ways to complicate the Soviets' problems.
Many factors led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. "Active measures," of
the sort propounded by Marshall, were prominent among them. You can hardly be
surprised that the Russians have sought to master new techniques. The underlying
proposition of the
New Yorker's
article is that the world is, or at least
it should be, unipolar, with the US in charge of its democratic values. After all
these years, the Russians still don't agree.
...the classic answer of collapsing juntas is the Malvinas solution:
rally the nation by creating a foreign confrontation of some kind. Usually this involves a
shooting war; but maybe a trade war would serve the same purpose.
"Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation
campaign: Senate Intel witness" [Raw Story].
Medicare for all and universal single payer healthcare is a Russian plot to
divide America and was used to interfere with the election to get Trump elected
and steal the Presidency from Hillary, who would have defeated Putin by now if
she had won, just like we won in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya,
Yemen, and lots of other places.
I think I'm going to try this line out on customers next time I tend bar.
Their input should be very helpful especially after they've had several
cocktails.
Of course. The Democratic Party is dismissive of the fact that the
institutions they hold so dear are corrupted beyond reformability. They have
zero self-awareness no matter how much yoga or meditation they practice and
the sooner the party goes extinct the better.
So now Bernie Bros are Stalin's unwitting dupes since "Trump is a Putin
agent" doesn't seem to be working out. As a Bernie Bro this Russian
connection is news to me, I couldn't stand Hillary forever (before Putin
even) and even less her hapless cadre of well wishers. If you pile up all
the lying and obfuscating that went on with Obama and Bush, I was more than
ready to look outside the Beltway for a life raft.
I tell you when I absolutely decided I was not going to play the 'lesser
evil' game and that was when it became patently obvious that Sec State
Hillary Clinton was going to approve of the DAPL pipeline by having its
environmental impact 'independently' scrutinized by a contractor that was
also working for the pipeline's owners. That piece of straw broke the
camel's back
I have yet to figure out why Apple's autocorrect keeps changing Bernie
Bros to beriberi
White russians vs formerfakered russians 100 yrs
later, razputin sez read my hips no interference in
american election
but from archangel where about 100 years ago the
only americans ever shot by russians died about 20
there and 30 Vladivostok if I have split the 50 killed
over two years from actual combat correctly
America and russia must always be kept
apart otherwise europe (and china) will not flourish
Russia is twice the physical size of the usa with
one third its population
Are there and have there been conflicts between the
2 nations these last 100 years well we invaded them at
the end of ww1 just as we (& others) invaded and
occupied china for a few decades but yes major
countries and with russia spanning three
continents(arguing diomide island & Aleutian isles are
part of n. America) it is impossible for Russian
interests to not involve most northern hemisphere
economies
Just as communism and marxism is not some
communicable disease neither is hamiltonianism
If fearless leader were powerful, the trappings of
power(big building we see you erdo ), big posters, big
parades & 365247 as talking head would not be
necessary
If pinochet, fidel, marcos, stalin & franco were
"powerful" they would not have had to round up and kill
"dissidents"
actually i am worried about this. if they can
persistently smear sanders enough with this kind of
associated-with-foreign-enemies lie–which they can
escalate in various directions from a foundational
"russians used bernie"–i can see it taking him out from
any further effectiveness. the younger generation may
not take it seriously, but knee-jerk patriotism is
still quite useful–it's never failed when TPTB want a
war, has it?–for directing americans' minds to where
TPTB want them to go. i keep thinking of how easy it
was for mccarthyism to take hold in the 1950s, and we
are now seeing so much that is reminiscent of that. and
mccarthyism was very effective in crushing the left,
with consequences we are still suffering. the more
followers sanders attracts, the more dangerous and
frightening to TPTB he will become. they have barely
begun to take him seriously as a threat. this is only
the beginning of what they will try in their effort to
erase it if they see it escalating.
Unfortunately, the only thing you are wrong about
is just being worried about "this" so specifically
the TPTB will try any and all possible levers to get
what they want. It will take more than Sanders to
stop them, and they will crush quite a few people
along the way. Might include Sanders, but if he's
the only resistance then they will certainly crush
his movement and will get their war on.
We need a 1000 flowers to bloom. Every type and
in every direction.
agreed. i am specifically worried about the
russia/sanders thing (and not mentioning all the
rest that you refer to) because i don't see it
being taken seriously now at its inception. i
think it's important to call attention at the
first emergence of a new disinfo campaign, which
often evokes from people, initially, laughter and
disbelief.
I was thinking along the lines of an internet
deluge of messages which convey something along
the lines of , " Do you actually think you have
dumbed us down to the point where we would
actually believe this Red Scare Shit? Or are just
gauging how much worse you have to make common
core education and lead levels to get us there?"
Not catchy but something to that effect.
I was reading the comments on the RawStorys piece
last night. It was absolutely frightening the hate the
majority of commenters have for people who supported
Bernie. The fact that almost all of their information
is untrue doesn't make any difference to them. They are
poorly informed and becoming very unhinged.
Do you remember "battle tested" and boasts about
Hillary winning Republicans? Those were just as
fantastical. Hillary ran in two elections (2006
doesn't count). She carpet bagged her way into New
York where she wound up facing a candidate too
extreme for Peter King and only won by 10 points.
Gore won by 25. Then she lost to Obama. She polled
as a consistent drag on down ticket races.
The stuff about Obama's soaring rhetoric was
absolutely nuts. "We aren't red states or blue
states. We are the United states." He was dopey
then. This is largely the result of emotional
investment in candidates. Admittedly, they are
lashing out because their imaginary friends aren't
on TV all the time. They remind me very much of
Lonzo Ball's old man or crazed sports parents and
stage mom's in general.
*this* - realize the Republican Party, hard
to say about Trump himself, but the Rs are
literally no more to the right of these people
than Sanders is to the left.
So it's not unhinged to treat him just as
badly.
They are OK with US tax levels because they
are comfortably well off, and being more urban
they can see the infrastructure and understand
that it has to be paid for. They are OK with
Obamacare because they aren't subject to it
and it "sounds good". They are OK with wars
because other people fight them. And so on.
I have said before that the millions upon
millions of Klinton Koolaid Kultists will be a
social problem going forward. They may well become a
menace.
Should Sanders supporters quietly begin forming
armed and trained militias to be able to protect
themselves and eachother from rioting Clintonite
mobs, Clintonite home-invaders, and so forth?
"Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents'
in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [Raw
Story]. You knew this was coming, right?
Well, no, I did not know that this was coming. I
suppose I should have; I did not realize that I, as a
Sanders supporter, was a tool of Russian propaganda. I
naively thought that I opposed Clinton because of her
immoral family foundation activities, her secret and
lucrative speeches to Wall Street firms, her Senate vote
for the invasion of Iraq, her vote to make it harder for
people to get out of bankruptcy, her votes to create and
reauthorize the Patriot Act, her disdain for
environmentalists, and all of the bizarre events
associated with her private email server. I guess I now
better now. (sarc)
That's no excuse. One must strive to not have
overlap with the Russian agenda. America depended on us
when we were most needed and in our failings we failed
America. /sarc
Almost as though a term as a US Senator and four
years as SoS would give us no idea how she might
govern. It was Russian propaganda that made us believe
she was going to do no better than give us more of the
same
And to think that my beloved aunt (RIP, Jean!)
turned me on to Bernie Sanders. Does that make her a
BernieAunt? If so, she'd think that it was hilarious.
Every time she does her leather lesbian routine,
I get excited for a brief moment that she's going to
come out as bi, which would be one cool progressive
thing she could achieve that would cost her nothing
(in reality - in her mind, I think she still
believes she's going to be President).
And then I remember the scam about the hot sauce
in her purse, and I wonder whose pocket she's trying
to pick by doing this.
Look like
Clinton Watt can't (or does not want) to distinguish crisis of neoliberalism in the USA after 2008 and Russian influence. This
is definitely pro-Clinton stance. He discredited himself by stating that Trump tower was wired is "fake
news." It is not a "fake news". After Snowden revelations this is a plausible
hypotheses that needs to be investigated and iether proved
or disproved. This "Putindidit" stance is a very convenient smoke screen for Clinton
supporters.
President Donald Trump aided Moscow's disinformation campaign during the 2016 U.S.
election by spreading false information originating from Russian state-sponsored news outlets and
internet bots, a cybersecurity expert testified before Congress on Thursday.
"Part of the reason active measures have worked in this U.S. election is because the commander
in chief has used Russian active measures, at times, against his opponents," Clint Watts, a fellow
at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told members of the Senate intelligence committee during
the panel's first public hearing on Russian election interference since Trump's inauguration in January.
The charge from Watts, a former FBI Special Agent who tracks Russian influence operations, came
in response to a question from Republican Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), who asked why Russian President
Vladimir Putin believed he could get away with interfering in last year's U.S. elections.
"They parrot the same lines," Watts responded, referring to Trump and Moscow. "[Trump] denies
the intel from the United States about Russia. He claimed that the election could be rigged. That
was the No. 1 theme pushed by RT, Sputnik news," Watts continued. "He's made claims of voter fraud,
that President Obama is not a citizen, that Congressman Cruz is not a citizen."
In some instances, Trump and his campaign team propagated fake stories they appear to have learned
about directly from Russian state media. Last year, then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort accused
the U.S. media of failing to cover a terrorist attack against the NATO air base in Incirlik, Turkey.
There was no such attack ― but RT, Sputnik and pro-Russian Twitter accounts
pushed a series of stories suggesting Incirlik was under threat.
According to Watts, pro-Russian Twitter accounts noticed Trump's loose relationship with facts
and sought to capitalize on it. They "tweet at President Trump during high volumes when they know
he's online and they push conspiracy theories," Watts testified.
The U.S. intelligence community released a
public assessment in January concluding that the Russian government used a campaign of false
information and cyber hacking efforts to discredit Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and help
Trump win the 2016 election. There is an ongoing FBI-led investigation into Moscow's alleged efforts
and possible collusion with the Trump team. The House and Senate intelligence committees are conducting
their own separate probes into the matter.
While the Kremlin appeared to favor Trump in the 2016 presidential election, there are indications
that Moscow has sought to undermine Republican politicians as well, Watts said Thursday. During the
presidential primary races, Russian media outlets "sought to sideline opponents on both sides of
the political spectrum with adversarial views towards the Kremlin," Watts said.
Turning his gaze toward Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a committee member and a GOP presidential candidate
last year, Watts said, "Senator Rubio, in my opinion you, anecdotally, suffered from these efforts."
This past week, Watts continued, social media accounts pushed material discrediting Speaker of
the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis).
AshLee Strong, a Ryan spokeswoman, said she wasn't familiar with the activity mentioned by Watts
but added that it was unsurprising "that foreign adversaries are trying to undermine our efforts."
Rubio, who did not immediately respond to Watts' claim, later confirmed that former members of
his presidential campaign team were targeted by IP addresses that traced back to an unknown location
within Russia. According to Rubio, the attempted breaches occurred in July 2016, shortly after he
announced he would run for Senate re-election, and again this week, at 10:45 a.m. on Wednesday. Both
attempts were unsuccessful, he said.
It's likely Moscow will turn against Trump as it becomes politically and strategically prudent
to do so, Watts warned. "They win because they play both sides," he said.
Russia began developing its active measures campaign in 2009, with its capabilities progressing
all the way up until the 2016 election, Watts said. The U.S. was slow to catch on to the threat,
he charged, because the intelligence community has been "over-focused on terrorism" and biased against
open-source information.
"My two colleagues and I use three laptops and we do this at our house," Watts said. "But for
some reason, the entire intel apparatus, with billions of dollars, will miss a tweet or a Facebook
post that's right in front of them."
Titled "Disinformation: A Primer in
Russian Active Measures and Influence Campaigns," the Senate Intelligence Committee's
rare public hearing on Thursday was promoted with a promise to provide details on how
the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 US presidential election.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, in his opening remarks, asserted
that the hearing would provide a "foundational understanding of the problem."
Once
again, however, evidence primarily consisted of speculation, and appeared to fall
short.
"Russian propaganda outlets like RT and Sputnik successfully
produced and peddled disinformation to American audiences" in favor of the campaign
of Donald Trump, Vice Chairman Mark Warner asserted in his remarks, as if it was a
well documented and proven fact.
"This Russian 'propaganda on steroids' was designed to poison the national
conversation in America."
"It is the totality of Russian efforts in plain sight - to mislead, to misinform,
to exaggerate - that is more convincing than any cyber evidence. RT, internet trolls,
fake news and so on, are an integral part of Russian foreign policy today," Rumer
claimed.
Roy Godson, a former Georgetown University professor still apparently stuck in the
Cold War era, continuously referred to Russia as "the Soviets." He did admit that
there is little evidence that Russia attempted to change vote tallies.
Former FBI agent Clinton Watts offered testimony about how "trolls" will push
hashtags and stories on Twitter until they make it into the top 10 trending items -
forcing mainstream media to cover the topic. Stating the obvious, he explained that
once information gets on to Twitter's trending list it will gain organic traction.
"This past week we observed social media campaigns targeting
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan hoping to foment further unrest amongst US democratic
institutions," Watts testified.
Many US Trump supporters took to Twitter following his comments to declare that
the former agent was giving Russia credit for their efforts, as prominent supporters
of the president have long voiced displeasure with Ryan.
Watts urged mainstream traditional media to boycott WikiLeaks, so that "Russian
influence dies on the vine."
He also claimed that the efforts did not just target Clinton during the primaries,
but other politicians as well - specifically including Senator Marco Rubio, who was
sitting on the panel.
"They were in full swing during both the Republican and Democratic primary
season - and may have helped sink the hopes of candidates more hostile to Russian
interests long before the field narrowed," Watts claimed. "Senator Rubio, in my
opinion, you anecdotally suffered from these efforts."
Pixabay
The 'Democrats' Benghazi': Russian Hacking Saga Continues
During the second panel, Rubio shocked the room when he stated that former members
of his presidential campaign were "targeted" by people using IP addresses in Russia,
first in July, and again on Wednesday.
"Former members of my presidential campaign team who had access to the internal
information of my presidential campaign were targeted by IP addresses with an unknown
location within Russia," Rubio said Thursday. "That effort was unsuccessful."
"I would also inform the committee within the last 24 hours, at 10:45 a.m.
yesterday, a second attempt was made, again, against former members of my
presidential campaign team who had access to our internal information - again
targeted from an IP address from an unknown location in Russia. And that effort was
also unsuccessful."
Following the hearing, Rubio was asked by Sputnik News whether he was able
to verify the person was actually in Russia and not just using a VPN to show a
Russian address. He paused for an extended moment before answering.
"I'm going to stay with what I said in the committee and not
outline anything further," Rubio told Sputnik News, measuring his words carefully.
"We've turned it over to the appropriate authorities and we'll go from there."
Earlier this month, Dmitry Peskov,
spokesman for Vladimir Putin, told CNN that "hysteria in official Washington and
in the American media" is harming relations between the two nations. He also
vehemently denied Russian involvement in election-related hacking.
"This is unimaginable and someone has to say - all this is not true. We have to be
sober, let's come to our minds," Peskov added.
On Tuesday, Burr and Warner spoke to reporters about their investigation.
Burr, a Republican, announced that seven staffers are working full time on the
probe, compared to three on the Benghazi investigation. The smaller investigation
into the 2012 attack cost American taxpayers over $7 million.
"This one's one of the biggest investigations that the Hill has seen in my tenure
here," Burr said.
"Trump scholars
gradually will determine how material was the sales boost in
the complicated ups-and-downs of Trump's financial position
in those days. For an explication of some of the favors owed,
which in one case went back to 1976, see the current article.
This much is indelibly clear: the president has seen Russia
as a prime source of revenue, if not investment, for twenty
years. Again, BBw:
Simultaneous with when the tower was going up, developer
Gil Dezer and his father, Michael, were building a
Trump-backed condo project in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla.
"Russians love the Trump brand," [Dezer] says, adding that
Russians and Russian Americans bought some 200 of the 2,000
units in Trump buildings he built. They flooded into Trump
projects from 2001 to 2007, helping Trump weather the real
estate collapse, he says."
My God, what an indoctrinated, completely brainwashed twat
you are. Note to Anne: this word is listed by the British
Board of Film Classification as an example of "moderate
language" for the 12 certificate...
Incapable (in this particular area) of any independent
thinking and like parrots capable only repeat Anti-Russian
propaganda from some questionable sources.
Reminds me population of a certain country in the past.
I wonder what will happen, if Russia opens archives and
show the world the level of greed and corruption of US
politicians during 1991-2000 "economic rape of Russia." In
this case Wikileaks staff can take a very long vacation.
Tell the American government that they'll have to apply for a VISA before you'll them come
into your country. Personally, I don't know why you'd want the bastards to come for a visit. If
you think your confused now wait until the inmates from the USA finish with their visit.
Obama was never a world-class leader - not even close. An arguably good speaker but not on
topics of state, mostly on ethnic divide, cummunal politics - things that touch heart strings
in disadvantaged sections of society (minorities, unemployed whites, etc).
As a politician he was pedantic (community level); as a statesman, zero.
Don Corleone : Good. Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service
for me. But until that day - accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day.
It's time they nailed everyone in the Obama Administration to the wall, then follow up with
every Republican in a former Bush Administration who is a NeverTrump douche and handcuff them
to one from Obama's group.
The only reason there are Republican - Never Trumpers is that they're terrified all their sins
will surface.
Once Trump starts reaming Obama and Clinton, they'll turn on Bush, etc.
Someone should shit or get off the pot with this Russian stuff... The REAL STORY IS SPYING
ON US CITIZENS AND CONGRESS AND OBAMA'S USE OF CLASSIFIED INTEL AND COMEY BRENNAN CLAPPER CRIMES.....
Lets get to it
There is nothing Russia could divulge that would come as a surprise to most of us here. At
this point it would just be a confirmation of the highly corrupt and immoral behavior we've seen
this government engage in for decades now. Besides, if we couldn't throw Bush and Cheney in the
slammer after what they did, what hope would we have to hold Obama and Clinton accountable? Until
further notice, this class of folks is above the law.
The Progressive Liberal Democrats who have been staunch allies with the Russians for nearly
50 years have now turned on them to hide their own failure in running Hillary. Big mistake Mr.
Schumer.
The Russians are looking out for Russia. They will uncork a plethora of very bad news for you,
including all the private dealings Progressives have had with them ('ala Ted Kennedy asking Andropov
to help screw Reagan during his last election) and the timing couldn't be better for the mid-term
elections.
The Progressives are no friend of America and as the word gets out to mainstream America, the
result will be devastating to the Democratic Party. Good. About time.
MORE INVESTIGATIONS OF DEMOCRATS!!!! FRY HILLARY!!!
Just like NSA always has and has never released any of it, why is that ? Do we actually have
a legitimate government or simply a giant criminal enterprise control mechanism ? Here are the
answers --
The Russians have their own shit to keep secret and when that is less important and damaging
then they will release the flood gates of hell on BHO and crew as well as Hillary and the Bushites.
Not until, but I suspect that time is approaching or very near. The tangled web of sociopaths
and psychopaths that control us, Hey ?
Most of the American population are so ignorant of the physical laws of nature that they prefer
to believe what the government tells them to believe instead of straining their brains to exercise
a little common sense. I think the disappearing 757 airliners at the Pentagon and Shanksville
are the most blatant of the government lies since they require no knowledge of high-rise building
construction. How people can ignore this kind of thing would be a mystery except that almost everyone
gets their news from the TeeVee.
Fortunately, liberal thugs have not succeeded in derailing Trump-Putin cooperation, even in
the most difficult areas: There is complete Russian-American military coordination in Iraq and
Syria, even where Turkey and Iran disagree. Russia is allowing the US to arm the Kurds against
ISIS in Syria, and Russia has asked Iran to withdraw its troops and militias from Iraq and Syria,
exactly as Trump wants.
Russia can pull out of SWIFT any time they want. Europe depends on their gas. Russia can demand
payment in rubles, too, or gold.
Europe's nuclear energy has already gone off a cliff, due to all the bad reactor parts from
the French. That makes Russian energy much more valueable, and they don't have enough LNG receiving
facilities to buy elsewhere in any significant amounts.
The only option now for the NWO is a quiet retirement, or mass global nuclear suicide. Any
guesses?
"The US Department of State has more than once asked us not to announce planned visits until
the last minute. This is not our tradition. We have been operating openly for years, but we have
respected the requests we have received from our colleagues in Washington in the past few years
. But what happened after that? First, the US Department of State asked us to keep the planned
visit quiet and not to announce it until the last possible minute, until we coordinated the date.
We did as they asked. But a day or two later the information was leaked by the US State Department
and sometimes by the US administration. Frankly, this put Russia and the media in a strange situation,
because they didn't know who to believe – the official agencies or the many leaks."
And as of this moment, the second quietest person in the room just happens to be...John Kerry.
Remember when they released the crystal clear recording of Vicky Nuland organizing the Ukraine
government? They must have been shocked at the utter indifference of supporters of the Obama regime.
John Podesta, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2016 national campaign chairman, may
have violated federal law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed
company when he joined the Obama White House in 2014, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation's
Investigative Group.
Joule Unlimited Technologies - financed in part by a Russian firm -
originally awarded
Podesta 100,000 shares of stock options when in 2010 he joined that board along with its Dutch-based
entities: Joule Global Holdings, BV and the Stichting Joule Global Foundation.
When Podesta announced his departure from the Joule board in January 2014 to become President
Obama's special counsellor, the company officially
issued him 75,000
common shares of stock.
The Schedule B section of the federal government's form 278 which - requires financial disclosures
for government officials - required Podesta to "report any purchase, sale or exchange by you, your
spouse, or dependent children of any property, stocks, bonds, commodity futures and other securities
when the amount of the transaction exceeded $1,000."
The same year Podesta joined Joule, the company agreed to accept 1-Billion-Rubles - or $35 million
- from Rusnano, a state-run and financed Russian company with close ties to President Vladimir Putin.
Anatoly Chubais, the company CEO and two other top Russian banking executives worked together
with Podesta on the Joule boards. The board met six times a year.
Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director said because of the Kremlin backing, it was essential
Podesta disclose the financial benefits he received from the company.
"I think in this case where you're talking about foreign interests and foreign involvement, the
collateral interest with these disclosure forms is put in the forefront of full disclosure of any
foreign interest that you may have," he told TheDCNF in an interview.
The existence of the 75,000 shares of Joule stock was first revealed by the Government Accountability
Institute
report issued last year.
But Podesta didn't pocket all the shares. Correspondence from Podesta to Joule instructed the
firm to transfer only 33,693 shares to Leonidio Holdings, a brand-new entity he incorporated only
on December 20, 2013, about ten days before he entered the White House.
Leonidio is registered in Delaware as a limited liability corporation. Podesta listed the address
of his daughter, Megan Rouse, in the incorporation papers. His mother and father also appear to be
co-owners of Leonidio.
TheDCNF made multiple inquiries to OGE and received no reply. TheDCNF inquiries to Mr. Podesta
were not returned.
That's
not the end of the story though, as John Podesta's brother, Tony, confirmed Russia's largest
bank had hired the Podesta Group to lobby for an end to sanctions ...
Like Ron Paul says - since the government spies on everyone, it's a certainty that the last
administration spied on Trump.
By the same token, since it's guaranteed that there are pedophiles existing in positions of
power pretty much everywhere (not just in the Catholic church), one can make a blind guess that
there is a pedo ring inside the government and be right.
My suspicion is that pizzagate conspiracy is invented, but regardless of that fact, real pedophiles
in the government are scared shitless that if the authorities begin digging, they'll be discovered.
That's why they want pizzagate talk silenced.
"... The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple. ..."
"... They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly violent way. ..."
"... Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period. That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard of living and uncertain job prospects. ..."
"... US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending. ..."
"... The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human rights and the US' Bill of Rights. ..."
"... The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their media... ..."
The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they
try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple.
I would love to see this lying, cheating, selfish, crazy devil (yeah, I know I sound
a bit OTT but the description is fact based) of a president and his enablers challenged
on their Christian values.
They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly
violent way.
Are the people who consider our current rulers to be "American Taliban" inclined to become
"leakers" of government activities against the citizens, because they definitely stop to consider
the country as their own and view it as occupied by dangerous and violent religious cult?
Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period.
That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US
neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God
knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution
of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard
of living and uncertain job prospects.
ilsm -> libezkova... March 26, 2017 at 05:42 AM
I see the angst over Sessions talking to a Russia diplomat twice as a red herring.
US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made
an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending.
The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human
rights and the US' Bill of Rights.
The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their
media.....
"... "They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said. ..."
"... "That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it." ..."
"... "I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded. ..."
"... Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult. ..."
"... "This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said. ..."
"... "Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count." ..."
"... Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor is..." ..."
NSA whistleblower William Binney told Tucker Carlson on Friday that the NSA is spying on "all
the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as
well as the White House."
Binney, who served the NSA for 30 years before blowing the whistle on domestic spying in 2001, told
Tucker he firmly believes that Trump was spied on.
"They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting
all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said.
"That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he
said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards,
things like that, all of it."
"Inside NSA there are a set of people who are -- and we got this from another NSA whistleblower
who witnessed some of this -- they're inside there, they are targeting and looking at all the members
of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the
White House," Binney said.
"And all this data is inside the NSA in a small group where they're looking at it. The idea is
to see what people in power over you are going to -- what they think, what they think you should
be doing or planning to do to you, your budget, or whatever so you can try to counteract before it
actually happens," he said.
"I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded.
Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually
makes stopping attacks more difficult.
"This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they
can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said.
"Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been
going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was
challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count."
Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor
is..."
Bringing history more up to date, this is Stalinism, i.e., fascism. As John
T. Flynn states, "Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator." Neo-fascism of course
is Stalinism-blame Hitler.
So, is it fascism?
Yes, says Major Todd Pierce (retired) in an interview with Philip Weiss of
Mondoweiss - who says NSA whistle blower Bill Binney has "got to be one of the smartest
people in the world, I don't think that's an exaggeration. He was one of the smartest
people at the NSA.
Says Weiss: "And he agrees with me fully. Because he's seen the NSA. We're
a more sophisticated form of what I think has to be called fascism. The term fascism was
applied to the way the communists and Stalin got on as well. You bring the term fascist to what
it really means, and that ultimately is, ultramilitarism and authoritarianism combined with
an expansionist foreign policy. And that's us-what you can see us becoming."
The Roman Empire's death was far more complicated than "moral rot" and its "currency
devaluation." Read some history books.
Chris Hedges makes the observation that ALL empires that are scourges of the earth,
eventually turn inwards. As the empire begins its fatal decline, the terror they inflicted on
outsiders, is then turned against its own citizens.
We now see that happening in America. Banks, corporations, intel/military, etc. are turning
inward: destroying meaningful employment, humane health care, and pilfering billions of $s
reserved for the 1%.
Just Another Vi... -> FriendlyAquaponics •Mar 25, 2017 8:05 PM
A video worth revisiting......
Reuters ..........
... Obama criticizes Donald Trump endlessly....over Trumps assertions that the election is
rigged..,
telling the candidate to "stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."
That's right, the DOD. They can't go completely rogue, without the explicit or implicit
approval of the Secretary of Defense and his Deputies.
It is rather phoney and hypocritical of any POTUS - including Pres. Thump - to moan about the
NSA, without loping off heads at the DOD and NSA. By that, I include all the Deputies, who do
the real work and know the real secrets.
It's time that Thump had a "Come to Jesus" meeting with all these guys. Else he's part of the
problem, and no amount of sugar coating can stop a turd being a turd.
TheReplacement -> HRClinton •Mar 25, 2017 9:42 PM
In an honest world, sure.
In reality, no. Like Binney said, they don't have to do anything they don't like because
NOBODY can prove they haven't complied with orders. There is nobody who can watch the
watchers. They can blackmail anyone.
'Gosh, I have no idea how that child porn got on my computer.'
CIA or NSA knows exactly how it got there. They put it there.
"... Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan. US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies to the Afghan Taliban". ..."
"... It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say "the dog ate my homework". ..."
"... He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird of prey" ..."
"... 69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing ..."
"... I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist traitors. They are Ziocrats. ..."
"... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that Israel's exaggerated influence in the US. ..."
"... Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right. ..."
"... US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and Japan. ..."
"... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. ..."
"... Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship". ..."
"... The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." ..."
"... I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away. ..."
"... When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, ..."
Every time the ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California opens his mouth to propagate
unsubstantiated allegations against Russia and Russian influence on the last US elections, he
makes a reminder, inadvertently, of the First Husband (the philanderer) taking $500.000 from Russians.
The money was a bribe intended to make a right impression on Mrs. Clinton. Keep going Mr. Schiff.
There were also tens of millions of $US dollars delivered to Clintons Foundation by the major
sponsors of terrorism. These tens of millions of dollars from Saudis, Qatari, and Moroccans constitute
bribing of a State Department official. As a result of these bribes, the US government has violated
the US Constitution by supplying the US-made weaponry to the Middle Eastern warmongering despots/sponsors
of terrorism. That is indeed a treason. Let Mr. Schiff talk. He has been making a nice rope for
his own hanging.
Skip Scott , March 24, 2017 at 8:02 am
Great post Anna.
Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:06 am
Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan.
US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies
to the Afghan Taliban".
It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official
gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say
"the dog ate my homework".
Therefore, all these US Demopublicans, generals and other assorted officials are obviously
all on Putin's payroll, because they keep working to increase his popularity.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 1:32 pm
Democrats. Republicans. Same old, same old.
In 1904 Upton Sinclair wrote in The Jungle :
"The original edition of the novel concluded with its proletarian protagonist attending a mass
rally addressed by the American Socialist Party's mesmerizing presidential candidate – Sinclair's
fictional representation of Eugene Debs. The candidate, Sinclair wrote:
"was a man of electric presence, tall and gaunt, with a face worn think by struggle and suffering.
The fury of outraged manhood gleamed in him – and the tears of suffering. When he spoke he paced
the stage restlessly; he was lithe and eager, like a panther. He leaned over, reaching out for
his audience; he pointed into their souls with an insistent finger. His voice was husky from much
speaking, but the hall was still as death, and everyone heard him. He spoke the language of workingmen
– he pointed them the way. He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird
of prey" [emphasis added]. The people were allowed to choose between their candidates, and
both of them were controlled, and all their nominations were dictated by, the same [money] power."
In a number of essays Walter Karp made similar points backed up by lots of evidence.
Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:04 pm
That book should be required reading in this country. I suspect most people have never even
heard of it despite the fact that it was undoubtedly one of the most influential books of the
early 20th century.
D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 1:34 pm
The time is extraordinary in the reckless and naked way the PTB (i.e. the two major parties)
are exposing themselves as to NOT serving the people. I was disappointed today to read on RT that
69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing (showing I've
been wrong lately on my estimates), but I'm hopeful that will not last. More important, Robert's
article shows us the dedication of the parties to their deeper playbook, which is obviously controlled
by financial interests, not the people's interests. The nakedness of this exposure today is unusual
in my experience of watching Washington.
Recommended: a look at what could be a companion piece to Robert's article from Mike Whitney
in today's counterpunch, titled "Will Washington risk WWIII to block an emerging EU-Russia super-state":
From that article:
"For the last 70 years the imperial strategy has worked without a hitch, but now Russia's resurgence
and China's explosive growth are threatening to break free from Washington's stranglehold. The
Asian allies have begun to crisscross Central Europe and Asis with pipelines and high-speed rail
that will gather together the far-flung statelets scattered across the steppe, draw them into
a Eurasian Economic Union, and link them to an expansive and thriving superstate, the epicenter
of global commerce and industry."
Neither the proud Russians nor Chinese will diminish their nation and culture. BRICS is the
level of unity they will accept.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 1:36 pm
I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being
labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten
"donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama
got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they
are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist
traitors. They are Ziocrats.
J. D. , March 23, 2017 at 2:02 pm
The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous
illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy
in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that
Israel's exaggerated influence in the US.
Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire
policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the
Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right.
US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to
maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over
Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special
relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that
their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic
self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and
Japan.
Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Well said. It's also time to get rid of the phony "Special Relationship" (between 1%er oligarchs
of The City and The Street), to replace it with the actual Special Relationship, so as to ease
UK's transition into the New multi-polar Era dawning: this is tribal, in that dear old "Mother
Country" need not worry that Her "Four Children" (Australia, Canada, N.Z., USA) will leave Her
out in the cold. THAT is the TRUE special relationship; the far-flung, English-speaking Tribe
will see to the General Welfare of ALL of its' members, but without degrading the well-being of
the rest of the World. War is obsolete, not conducive to anyone's well-being, Geopolitics & divide
& conquer is over, finished.
Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 4:03 pm
Zionism is a product of Cecil Rhodes' RoundTable Group, which, in concert with the Synarchist
Movement for Empire, concerned how to manage African and Middle East colonies and assets belonging
mainly to British and French Empires (which also explains WHY the Brits dawdled in North Africa
during WWII, much to the chagrin of Stalin and Gen Marshall, who wanted to open up the Western
Front ASAP).
They found the perfect opportunity to implement the strategy post-WWII, and suckered USA, via
The City's Wall Street Tories, into guaranteeing the existence of Israel. End of story.
Check out the tons of articles on the subject at the EIR website. Tarpley covers it well also.
Argue your case with them, F Sam. Good luck. You'll need lots of it.
rosemerry , March 23, 2017 at 4:49 pm
All the talk of "Russian interference" takes over the media, but the ever-present Israeli connection
is just accepted as normal. Saudi Arabia, too, is allowed plenty of influence while Iran is demonized.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Yes, Brad, I agree that Cecil Rhodes and others were involved with the zionists fairly early,
although perhaps the greatest British interest was in the Suez canal. Also agree that the US was
fooled into taking over the Suez protection and pressuring the UN to create Israel. No doubt there
was Wall St interest, although I gather that zionists made direct "donations" to Truman's campaign
for the UN pressure.
No doubt there were British zionists involved. But I think that JD's theory that Brits control
US policy in the Mideast is a diversion from the obvious zionist control, whether he knows it
or not. I will look again at your EIR website. Did not mean to offend.
Brad Owen , March 24, 2017 at 4:27 am
Sam, we just disagree on the location of the REAL enemy. The zionistas are indeed real, and
a threat, a real enemy to the USA, but I maintain they are just a weapon wielded by our traditional
enemy who has always fought to undermine us here in America; the British Empire (an entity distinct
from the Anglo-Celtic people living on the British Isles who are our tribal mates and suffering
under the same yoke of Empire as are we).
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:26 pm
Completely wrong: it is an obvious fact that the Democrats have been taken over by the zionists.
Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." Hillary's major campaign sponsors are
all Jewish.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/033116/top-10-corporate-contributors-clinton-campaign.asp
The top 10 contributors to HRCs Superpac were as follows:
1. Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna: $35 million
2. Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners: $21,100,000
3. Jay Robert Pritzker (Mary), Pritzker Group and Foundation: $12,600,000
4. Haim Saban and Cheryl Saban, Saban Capital Group: $10,000,000
5. George Soros (Schwartz): $9,525,000 (changed name from Schwartz)
6. S. Daniel Abraham, SDA Enterprises: $9,000,000
7. Fred Eychaner (Eichner), Newsweb Corporation: $8,005,400
8. James Simons (Shimon), Euclidean Capital: $7,000,000
9. Henry Laufer and Marsha Laufer, Renaissance Technologies: $5,500,000
10. Laure Woods (Wald), Laurel Foundation: $5 million
Your suggestion that this is "British empire" policy is way beyond the ridiculous, it is zionist
propaganda. The entire UK economy is a small fraction of that of the US, and there is little financial
connection.
I challenge you to deny these facts, or to substantiate the absurd theory of British control.
US mass media.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm
To continue, the US mass media are also controlled by Jews, presumably zionists. About 40-60
percent of US newspapers are controlled by persons of identifiable Jewish surnames, while less
than half of Jewish people can be so identified. Most of the rest are indirectly controlled by
Jews.
No further explanation is needed of the mass media craze for Hillary Clinton (Kleinberg). The
DNC emails show that she talks to no one but Jews about Mideast policy.
No further proof is needed of the origins of Democrat policy in the Mideast. It may play to
the interests of the MIC and oil companies sometimes, but not in Syria/Libya/Egypt. And we got
no special deals on Iraqi oil anyway, and had no reason to expect them.
Your move.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:33 pm
In support of your points, here is an excellent article at a Jewish-run, anti-Zionist website
that points out the huge known influence of Israel on American politics that is being ignored
amidst all the speculation about possible Russian influence, "Let's talk about Russian influence"
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
Mondoweiss is a site of news and analysis with high journalistic standards. Like Consortium
News it has also been attacked by the Deep State for its honesty.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm
Thank you; it is very appropriate to note that many Jewish people are strong critics of zionism
and Israeli policies. There is some hope that they will assist in liberating Jews as well as Palestinians
from the racism of the zionists, as many whites assisted in greatly reducing racism among whites
in the US against African-Americans.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 4:02 pm
The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous
illusion that needs debunking.
There were references in an earlier post quoting two former Israeli prime ministers saying,
in effect, they could take care of U.S. politicians to ensure they would do Israel's bidding.
I recall Yitzhak Shamir was one of them. The spectacle of Netanyahu showing contempt for Obama
in the way he addressed Congress and the standing ovations Netanyahu got from the senators and
Congresspersons who sold their souls to the Israel lobby kind of supports the proposition that
"the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists"" Same thing goes for the Republicans.
Thanks for the links. PNAC founders Kristol and Kagan helped harness forces for zionist goals.
PNAC signers W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were principal promoters of Iraq War II,
as Wolfowitz installed Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser at CIA/DIA/NSA offices
to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite the war.
"The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a
dangerous illusion that needs debunking."
Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs
debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating
procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore
presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship".
Can you share the names of major influential figures composing what you describe as the "Anglo-American
financial oligarchy" for the benefit of others who pass this way?
It's hard to explain away Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and so many other U.S. politicians
fighting each other to get to the head of the pack in supporting Israel. Bernie Sanders only mentioned
that Palestinians suffer human and civil rights deficiencies and the world shook, despite it being
only a very minor, tiny critique of Israel. Can we imagine what would have happened – the titanic
reaction – had Mr. Sanders blurted out during one of the debates with Ms, Clinton the same conclusion
that Professor Virginia Tilley and Professor Richard Falk's report arrived at very recently –
that the State of Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid?
Years ago while Mr. Sanders appeared weekly with Thom Hartmann on "Brunch With Bernie" we redialed
the call-in program until finally getting through and asking two questions. The first was a request
for a response from Senator Sanders on the trillion-dollar / year global tax haven-evasion industry
facilitated by the world's most powerful accounting, legal and banking firms. The second requested
response on the suggestion that it was time to "nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve".
Mr. Sanders responded to the 1st, then suddenly the show went to music and a break – then after
the break until show's end nothing about the Federal Reserve.
My guess is that Mr. Sanders and Mr. Hartmann were aware of a "panic button to break" to be
triggered when the live call-in topics became, let's say, "unmanageable". That is just a guess,but
another guess is that Mr. Sanders was the recipient of, how shall we put it, very "risky" news
during his campaign for president when running against Ms. Clinton. So, long story short, Sanders
capitulated because he's fully aware of what happened to JFK, MLK and RFK, Clinton became spoiled
goods and unacceptable as America's new CEO, and Donald Trump was selected. Trump's long-time
friends include "Lucky" Larry Silverstein, who just happened to avoid being in his Twin Towers
on September 11, 2001, breaking his religiously kept routine of breakfast every morning in a restaurant
located in the top floors of one of the towers – because his wife fortunately convinced him to
keep an appointment with his dermatologist.
Donald Trump, "Lucky Larry" and Benjamin Netanyahu are long-time friends.
***
Men and women wishing to read, copy, save and disseminate the report on Israel apartheid by
Professor Tilley and Professor Falk can find it online at the co-author's internet platform, available
at:
The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over
$100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor."
In exchange Israel got a $38 BILLION package of US aid. What a deal!! Presumably, the Israel
lobby will show its appreciation to Obama with donations to his presidential library probably
making that library the most expensive ever.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Yes, there can be little doubt that the zionist campaign money comes at least indirectly from
US aid to Israel, and that the aid is intended substantially for that purpose. Investigation of
such cashflows might turn up evidence, although there is a quid pro quo economy on both sides
that could easily obscure the feedback.
You may well be right in suggesting that the vast aid flows simply make campaign donations
a great investment for those who would otherwise have invested in Israel. But the Dems and Reps
know that this aid to Israel is for campaign bribes, pure and simple.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:42 pm
In addition to the carrot bribes, there are also the blackmail sticks. This possibility is
consistent with the following segment of a 1998 interview with Kay Griggs, former wife of the
U.S. Army's director of assassination training.
Kay Griggs: "Even when he [General Al Gray] was General he ran an intelligence operation which
was a contract organization trying to hook politicians, and get them. What is the word? In other
words "
Interviewer: "In compromising situations?"
Kay Griggs: "Yes, yes. He had and still has an organization which brings in whores, prostitutes,
whatever you want to say, who will compromise politicians so they can be used."
In Part 1 of the interview she explains the motives behind this.
Kay Griggs: "I'm talking about the Brooklyn-New Jersey mob. My husband, Al Gray, Sheehan, they're
all Brooklyn. Cap Weinberger. Heinz Kissinger – there's the Boston mob, which was shipping weapons
back and forth to Northern Ireland. And I don't want to get too deeply involved in that, but it
goes – Israel – some of the Zionists who came over from Germany, according to my husband, were
– he works with those people – they do a lot of money laundering in the banks, cash transactions
for the drugs they're bringing over, through Latin America, the Southern Mafia, the Dixie Mafia,
which now my husband's involved with in Miami. The military are all involved once they retire.
They're – you know, they go into this drug and secondary weapon sales."
Shortly afterward in the same segment is this exchange.
Kay Griggs: "It's kind of like Monica and Bill. I think they put Monica in there to have something
on Bill. That's my own feeling. Sarah McClendon feels the same way. Because "
Interviewer: "And Linda Tripp was there to guide the situation."
Kay Griggs: "Absolutely, of course. Linda Tripp was Delta Force. Linda Tripp was trained by
Carl Steiner, who's in the diary [her husband's] with my husband. And he [Steiner] tried to
trip up Schwarzkopf. I mean, he was trying to take, to take the whole Iraqi thing over because
they had been baiting, you know using the Israeli rogues in Turkey. They were having little zig-zag
wars. It's all to sell weapons. It's all about weapons sales, it's all about drugs, it's all about
funny money."
A blackmail factor, combined with financial carrots, and especially if backed up with a death
threat, could easily explain why a reasonably intelligent and educated person would act uninformed
and irrational. The surface inconsistency becomes easy to understand. A strategic system of blackmail
of the sort Kay Griggs described could easily explain a phalanx of politicians lying in lockstep
to American voters, and voting against America's best interests.
backwardsevolution , March 24, 2017 at 12:19 am
JWalters – fascinating! Thanks for posting. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Sam f , March 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm
That is fascinating. There must be material on the linkages of secret agencies, ex-military
staff, political gangsters, and money-laundering banksters to the drugs and weapons trade. They
would be useful tools for false-flag incidents and to supply terror groups.
Those with connections should contact independent news reporters, who could perhaps train journalism
students to investigate further. There may be material in the Wikileaks Vault-7 dump of CIA docs.
Pablo Diablo , March 23, 2017 at 1:39 pm
A military buildup=an empire in decline.
chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:25 pm
before they let their hegemony over humanity collapse, they blow up the planet.
what's remarkable, for me as an outsider at least, how many insane people are running the show
and that's not exclusive to the psychotic right. seeing the mad general at hillary's DNC coronation
and the "U!S!A!" chants from the crowd, i'm under the impression that the majority of Americans,
that has not yet been marginalized and impoverished, is as deranged as ecstatic Germans cheering
on Goebbels and his total war.
Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:29 pm
Actually what's happening now in the US is more like France in 1848
Pauline Saxon , March 23, 2017 at 1:50 pm
I have supported you from the beginning. I would like to understand why you seem to be protecting
Trump
D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 2:15 pm
I don't believe Robert Parry or this site are protecting Trump. Questioning the demonizing
and slandering of Trump, and efforts to remove him, also do not constitute "protecting."
Trump was elected legitimately to be the president for better or worse. An assessment means
looking at both sides of whatever it is. Trump is obviously not doing well and getting negative
evaluations, but some of his views (for one example) that promise toward détente or acceptance
of a multi-polar world are worth considering.
Is he genuinely moving in this direction, or faking for some hidden reason? The jury is still
considering. So investigating an attack on Trump that is primarily bogus and motivated as a smoke
screen to demonize Russia, and prepare the nation for war, is not protecting Trump, but trying
to get at the underbrush of what's really going on behind the headlines.
Perhaps you could give us some idea of what you see as protecting Trump?
For myself I'm very critical of Trump. At this time he seems bent on building up ground troops
in Syria, but with ISIS already being subdued without this action, we should question why. What's
going on. Is he seeking a Ronald Reagan/George W. type of glory moment as One Tough Supreme Commander?
Is he now falling in to the neocon overview of controlling the middle east? It's more foolishness
in my view, that will not settle the problems and what W uncorked with his phony Iraq war. But
this kind of considering doesn't take the heat off the DEM Party for its unconscionable manipulations
with Trump and Russia bashing at this time.
Hayden Head , March 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm
Well said! You are spot on in your defense of Parry, who has consistently shown himself to
be committed to the truth, regardless of whom he is defending or the consequences of his position.
Many of us are waiting to see if Trump might, just might, lead us away from endless war to something
approaching a rational foreign policy. Is such hope foolishness? Well, hope usually is.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 8:08 pm
Unfortunately, this site is afflicted with the utterances of sloppy readers who are triggered
to hit their keyboard when some sentence gets their attention and causes them to ignore other
contradictory commentary.
Jake G , March 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm
What are you talking about? There are as many Trump-critic articles from him.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
It seems to me Parry is not so much protecting Trump as trying to protect America from another
needless war manufactured by the Deep State, e.g. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War
on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Gina , March 23, 2017 at 1:52 pm
Excellent article. I am pretty horrified at the direction of the Dems which has become Rethuglican-lite.
LJ , March 23, 2017 at 2:06 pm
The Democrats abandoned their core constituency , LABOR, when Clinton got the 1992 nomination
promising to sign NAFTA a short time after having been pictured attending a Bilderberg Beer fest,
Since then by jumping further under the sheets with High Finance and Tech Billionaires they have
continuously bled votes everywhere except the West Coast. Recent Polling you may have noticed
has the Democrats declining in favorability even more since the election. Strange Days have found
us haven't they?. .when all else fails we can whip the horses eyes and make them sleep and cry ..
I say for starters we separate the words Military and Intelligence forever with a Constitutional
Amendment .. How then will Senators McCain and Feinstein react? What will they do for God's sake?
The rest of the Two Party infrastructure will quickly implode. Sorry. Thank God and the ACA,,
the Amazon Drone has just delivered my prescription meds.. Peace in our time.
chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:13 pm
i think it's safe to say that the democrats have been equally adept at waging war since the
nutcase LBJ didn't know if they were shooting at whales in the bay of tomkin and started the American
holocaust. obama let his darling Hillary run amok which resulted in a rise of refugees and idp
by 50% to over 60 million, in just his first term. you actually live in a country run by Nazis
for a very long time. from Kissinger to McCain, they are people in power who have collaborated
with Nazis (phoenix, condor) and continue to do so in Ukraine or with Islamic extremists in syria.
the prospect of McCain anywhere near the state dept must be avoided by an means necessary.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm
"[B]ut what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom." That's
it Mr. Parry. That is the key that we need to understand. It is not, not, a priority of either
political half of the Republican/Democratic dynamic, to do good for the American people. We are
being subjected to the policies which previously were our export, the evisceration of nation(s)
to benefit private capital.
I had previously wondered, back in the 90's when Russia was being subjected to neo liberal
economic intervention, why these vultures hadn't descended upon the United States, being the feted
calf that it were. But I was blind, they were already descending, it only has take some time and
a couple of "opportunities", such as 9/11, the Katrina hurricane, to implement those same measures
here.
We need to understand that our current political structure is indifferent to the well being
of the majority of the "citizens" ie; what are now more commonly called consumers. If the prisons
stay full and the indebtedness mounts that is part of the program. Stop thinking that our present
system is offering anything that would be recognized by a rational and moral human being as something
even close to "a government of the People, by the People, for the People; [or] Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness."
ltr , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm
I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member
needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I
repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:38 pm
It is nearly impossible to engage with someone in a political context and advocate for a least
a fair mind, some neutrality in examining the domestic political situation and relations with
Russia. I have to mute myself unless I am willing to engage in a long and tiring argument/discussion
in which my point is lost and I have to defend simple ideas of statesmanship and diplomacy.
Sheryl , March 23, 2017 at 5:22 pm
I can relate. The frustrating part is that they think I'm a nut wearing a tinfoil hat.
Realist , March 23, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Would you go so far as to say that most such discussions now take place on terrain far removed
from the real world? And, if you insist on sticking to facts rather than fantasy, are you immediately
branded an enemy of the state, an intellectual exile without friends or influence, and probably
someone marked for extinction, at least on the professional level, if this country must repeat
the greatest mistakes of the 1930's and 40's, as it seems headed? So glad I am retired, and I
worked in the natural sciences, not the more volatile and political social sciences. Now their
only leverage against me is my state pension and health benefits, which many do want to make into
a political football.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 7:31 pm
The distinction between the real and the ideological has been blurred in accordance with the
principles of public opinion management, ie; propaganda. The prevailing mania, contextualized
via the dynamic of globalized free market capitalism masquerading as the promotion of freedom
and democracy, is where one finds that the seeds of "treason" are sown wider and wider against
heretics.
Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:35 am
Just reading what all of you guys have written about the prevailing atmosphere in the so called
intellectual community, which is much more serious than the atmosphere in the nutty MSM, makes
me think of the Decline of the Roman Empire. Many people here are leftists, therefore they will
disagree with me, but I see absolutely solid parallels between Russia-hate and AGW. Both have
become religion for the vast majority of the Western intellectual class, devoid of the principal
tool of the intellectuals – rationality. If you are a doubter, you will be ostracized .
Enquiring Mind , March 23, 2017 at 2:24 pm
They have no decency, sir.
At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat, even though his methods and execution were unsound.
Miranda Keefe , March 23, 2017 at 3:59 pm
"At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat."
The US was the aggressor in the Cold War. The Soviet Union, after the war, wanted to continue
to co-exist under the spheres of influence agreed on by the US at Yalta.
When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention
in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, his VP, his chosen
future VP and successor, the great Henry Wallace.
Gregory Herr , March 23, 2017 at 7:52 pm
Wallace instead of Truman? One of the big "what might have been" turns of history.
Whether the Soviet union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an enemy
to divert the sheeple's attention that their so called American dream is really a nightmare. Besides,
USA's empire is failing and Russia is getting stronger. of course USA will be pissed off about
it.
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
I'm glad to have lived to see them almost fail. When I first read this in 1984, by coincidence,
there seemed to be no end in sight. As soon as the USSR failed they replaced it with terrorism(Eastasia)....
Help out of you can. Seth Rich was exposing corruption with the DNC against Bernie
Sanders. He was mysteriously shot in the back last summer, but his wallet and
watch weren't taken.
I still can't figure this Russiophobia out. We went from a path to mutual arms
reduction and normalizing relations to the shitstorm in Ukraine and Syria. I think
I know who started that whole mess, but I still haven't figured out why other than
maintaining friendly control of European petrochemicals.
We went from Bush II and Vlad fishing and hanging out at the ranch to where we are today. WTF happened?
Same here. This new obsession is complete and utter insanity.
The leftists in
the US remind me of the revolutionaries in Bolshevik Russia. They want a
revolution and dream of communal living.
Communal living is my worst nightmare! Anyone that has shared a house with
roomies soon understands that one person pays the bills while another eats all
the food and one person cleans the toilet while everyone else makes a mess of
the entire place. Communal living sounds great, in theory. In practice? It
doesn't work.
"This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America
meltdown. And Russophobia is but a symptom of the internal decay at the heart
of US politics."
More importantly, it is a decay in the electorate and how it relates to the
elected (isn't that the real heart of US politics?)
And so the elected, naturally, have become a corrupt mass of opportunists.
This is why they ("We") invented Rule of Law. We just have to give a damn like
We mean it.
Expect some variation of this story below to come from the upcomine revelations. Trump and Nunes want to not only demonstrate
that Obama was scum, but put a major wedge between the DNC and Jews and Israel:
Firstly, there would have to be sufficient information showing Obama initiated the spying. Unless Obama has political knives
out after him, these facts won't come out until 2030.
Secondly, the media, and other powers-that-be would muddy the water. We'll never know *who* and *why* of the story.
Thirdly, if the NSA comes out with genuine evidence, then we may be able to assume there IS a conflict between the FBI, the
CIA vs the NSA. That, in itself, would be very relevant news.
Growing conflicts in any large government are not conducive to a smooth-operating empire.
Or maybe you are right and the NSA are the good guys. Maybe Snowden did what he did because the NSA itself is not happy about
what they are told to do. Snowden did not go rogue but is following orders from within NSA.
It could also be that the NSA dropped vault 7 onto WikiLeaks as well as the various Hillary leaks during the campaign.
And NYPD says Hillary knew that Wiener was sexing underage girl & did not report it to authorities. The NYPD was prevented
from pursuing charges against her.
"Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [Politico]. (Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians were hacking tampering with
meddling in seeking to influence our election! Where's that declaration of war I had lying around
______________________
Members[edit]
European Congress of Ukrainians (Yaroslava Khortiani)
Armenia: Federation of Ukrainians of Armenia "Ukraine"
Belgium: Main Council of Ukrainian Public Organizations
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Coordination council of Ukrainian associations
Czech Republic: Ukrainian Initiative in the Czech Republic
Croatia: Union of Rusyns and Ukrainians of the Republic of Croatia
Estonia: Congress of Ukrainians of Estonia
France: Representative Committee of the Ukrainian Community of France
Georgia: Coordination Council of Ukrainians of Georgia
Germany: Association of Ukrainian Organizations in Germany
Greece: Association of the Ukrainian diaspora in Greece "Ukrainian-Greek Thought"
Hungary: Association of Ukrainian Culture in Hungary
Italy
Latvia: Ukrainian Cultural-Enlightening Association in Latvia "Dnieper"
Lithuania: Community of Ukrainians of Lithuania
Moldova: Society of Ukrainians of Transnistria
Norway
Poland: Association of Ukrainians in Poland (Piotr Tyma)
Portugal: Society of Ukrainians in Portugal
Romania: Union of Ukrainians of Romania
Russia: Association of Ukrainians of Russia
Serbia
Slovakia: Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians of the Slovak Republic
Spain
Switzerland
United Kingdom: Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain (Zenko Lastowiecki)
Others
Australia: Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations (Stefan Romaniw)
Argentina: Ukrainian Central Representation in Argentina
Brazil: Ukrainian-Brazilian Central Representation
Canada: Ukrainian Canadian Congress (Paul Grod)
Kazakhstan: Ukrainians in Kazakhstan
Paraguay:
United States: Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (Andriy Futey)
United States: Ukrainian American Coordinating Council (Ihor Gawdiak) [2]
Uzbekistan: Ukrainian Cultural Center "Fatherland"
They also are attempting to influence our Atlantic Council!
Funding[edit]
In September 2014, the New York Times reported that since 2008, the organization has received donations from more than twenty-five
governments outside of the United States, including $5 million from Norway.[34] Concerned that scholars from the organization
could be covertly trying to push the agendas of foreign governments, legislation was proposed in response to the Times report
requiring full disclosure of witnesses testifying before Congress.[35] Other contributors to the organization include the Ukrainian
World Congress, and the governments of Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.[9][36]
Plus, Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the famous DNC security firm, CrowdStrike, is a senior fellow of our Atlantic Council!
"... Now we have "synthetic" surveillance. You don't even need a court order. Now all incidental communication intercepts can be
unmasked. One can search their huge databases for all the incidental communications of someone of interest, then collect all of the
unmasked incidental communications that involve that person and put them together in one handy dandy report. Viola! You can keep tabs
on them every time they end up being incidentally collected. ..."
"... You ever went to an embassy party? Talked to a drug dealer or mafia guy without being aware of it? Correspond overseas? Your
communications have been "incidentally" collected too. There is so much surveillance out there we have probably all bounced off various
targets over the last several years. ..."
"... This is what police states do. In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities
of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's nomination
to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary
of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear
to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag. ..."
"... Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday
that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. ..."
"... The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal
on N.Korea etc? ..."
"... But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches
of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely. ..."
"... It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials..
..."
The rank and file of the IC are not involved in this. So let's not tar everyone with the same brush, but Obama revised executive
order 12333 so that communication intercepts incidentally collected dont have to be masked and may be shared freely in the IC.
Now we have "synthetic" surveillance. You don't even need a court order. Now all incidental communication intercepts can
be unmasked. One can search their huge databases for all the incidental communications of someone of interest, then collect all
of the unmasked incidental communications that involve that person and put them together in one handy dandy report. Viola! You
can keep tabs on them every time they end up being incidentally collected.
You ever went to an embassy party? Talked to a drug dealer or mafia guy without being aware of it? Correspond overseas?
Your communications have been "incidentally" collected too. There is so much surveillance out there we have probably all bounced
off various targets over the last several years.
What might your "synthetic" surveillance report look like?
There's way more going on here then first alleged. From Bloomberg, not my choice for news, but There is another component to
this story as well -- as Trump himself just tweeted.
It's very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S.
officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls
between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.
Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason.
Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy
reputations from the cloak of anonymity.
This is what police states do. In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities
of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's
nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests
when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations
with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.
Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday
that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. "There does appear to be a well orchestrated
effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration," he said. "From the leaking of phone calls between the president and
foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security
clearances, it looks like a pattern."
@?realDonaldTrump?
The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening
as I deal on N.Korea etc?
President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways, correct. These leaks are an enormous
problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate
public opinion for the sake of achieving a desired political outcome. It's weaponized spin.............
But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political
branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely.
It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials..
..... But the answer isn't to counter it with equally irregular acts of sabotage - or with a disinformation campaign waged
by nameless civil servants toiling away in the surveillance state.....
"... " The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on the phone calls or other communications now being cited as partial vindication for the president's wiretapping claims against the Obama administration, according to a spokesperson. ..."
"... I think im1dc along with a couple of other commenters here symbolize perfectly well the problem Democratic leadership got on themselves. ..."
"... He got the taste of sniffing Russian pants and now he can't stop, despite the fact that all his knowledge of Russia came from US media. Kind of political graphomania, of some sort. Or, incontinence, if you wish. ..."
"... In other words now in the USA hysteria became detached from the facts and has now its own life. Obtained classic witch hunt dynamics. ..."
"... "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. ..."
"... And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed. ..."
"... Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence. ..."
"Intel chair Devin Nunes unsure if Trump associates were
directly surveilled"
By Mike Levine...Mar 23, 2017...5:24 PM ET
" The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin
Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President
Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on
the phone calls or other communications now being cited as
partial vindication for the president's wiretapping claims
against the Obama administration, according to a
spokesperson.
"He said he'll have to get all the documents he requested
from the [intelligence community] about this before he knows
for sure," a spokesperson for Nunes said Thursday..."
I think im1dc along with a couple of other commenters here
symbolize perfectly well the problem Democratic leadership
got on themselves.
He got the taste of sniffing Russian pants and now he
can't stop, despite the fact that all his knowledge of Russia
came from US media. Kind of political graphomania, of some
sort. Or, incontinence, if you wish.
In other words now in the USA hysteria became detached
from the facts and has now its own life. Obtained classic
witch hunt dynamics.
It became by-and-large out of control of Democratic
leadership, and they feel that they became hostages of it.
But they can't call the dogs back.
It was a dirty but effective trick to avoid sacking
Democratic Party failed, corrupt neoliberal leadership
(Clinton wing of the party). It worked, but it come with a
price.
As Glenn Greenwald noted.
"The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media
figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from
feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free
conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after
both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now
millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a
Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there
is no evidence.
And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as
inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and
Trump will be removed.
Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the
expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now
trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal
that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis
in reason or evidence.
The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led
circus is President Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael
Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context
is that Morell was one of Clinton's most vocal CIA
surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the
pages of the New York Times but also became the first high
official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming,
"In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin
had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian
Federation."
But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence
community forum to "cast doubt" on "allegations that members
of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia." "On the question
of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here,
there is smoke, but there is no fire at all," he said,
adding, "There's no little campfire, there's no little
candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking
for it."
"Obama's "Russia Hacked The Election" is CODE for "Trump Stole The Election."
Any "provable" instance of Russian hacking might also be a false flag operation
to justify new round of sanctions. That make Obama to look especially bad as he
asked CA to investigate this case, while t might well be that CIA is the agency
that needs to be investigated. They now have a lot of friends n Baltic republics
and Ukrane to stage also false flag operation attributable to Russia, they wish.
Remeber Oswald and JFK assassination.
In keeping with the theme
of providing no proof to the
general public, the
officials declined to
describe the intelligence
obtained
about the
involvement of a third-party
in passing on leaked
material to WikiLeaks,
saying they did not
want to reveal how the U.S.
government had obtained the
information
. So
just trust them, please.
Good thing we can completely
trust the integrity of
17 Intelligence Agencies
®
because this explanation is
exactly what a corrupt and
politicized institution would
use to try to pass off a
completely fabricated story as
legitimate.
Just imagine
Friday's meeting
if Trump
actually knows
who lifted the
DNC files?
Only, judging by
the way he is
playing this
thus far in
being openly
dismissive of
anything put
forward, that
may very well be
the case.
To have the
entire combined
intel machine by
the balls
without them
knowing, as they
project their
politicised
billion dollar
bullshit...now
that would be a
beautiful thing
to behold.
Looking at some of the 'information' from previous hacks
1. Sony - claimed to be North Korea
2. DNC/Clinton email - claimed to be Russia
3. Various - claimed to be China
4. Iranian centrifuges - no claims, but pretty good indication it was CIA/NSA/Israel
Now, who from that list didn't want HRC to be president. One could make a compelling case that #4, particularly Israel, would go this route and have the wherewithall/foresight to make it look like #2 - and Obama/Kerry allowing the UN vote to go through as punishment. Or, we can believe #2 was sloppy (or intentionally sloppy to send a message/rub our noses in it). Or, it was some 14 year old operating from their parents basement - nah, no 14 year old would think of covering their tracks to make it look like someone else.
thought crimes are where you find them, ask the catholic church.
seriously though, john mccain is an asset of the mossad. no other formation does it justice:
"We will obviously be talking about the hacking, but the main thing is the whole issue of cybersecurity," the committee's Republican chairman, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said ahead of the hearing. "Right now we have no policy, no strategy to counter cyberattacks."
check this shit out (my bold): Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War
By Jeff Gates, State Street Publications, 2008, paperback, 320 pp. List: $27.95; AET: $18
(if
you really want to understand why this is going on, read.on; others be assured it is true.).
In his chapter on "John McCain and the Financial Frauds,"ť Gates reviews McCain's unsavory role in the "Keating Five"ť scandal. The following chapter recounts the shameful role of McCain's father in helping to
cover up Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War in which 34 of the crew were killed and 294 wounded
. "From a game theory perspective,"ť Gates explains, "by covering up the murder of Americans aboard the USS Liberty, a U.S. president
(with the aid of Admiral John McCain, Jr.
) confirmed that Israeli extremists could murder Americans
without
endangering U.S. support."ť
Reviewed by Andrew I. Killgore
Books
GUILT BY Association is an initially confusing masterpiece almost too stuffed with evidence to concentrate on making clear its basic theme. But author Jeff Gates did so in a recent letter to a distinguished retired American diplomat: "The research pivoted off the firsthand experience of "John Doe' whose experience spans 56 years of dealing with a
transnational criminal syndicate whose senior operatives share a common ideology in fundamental Judaism and a skill set experienced in displacing facts with beliefs.
Thus the common source of the fixed intelligence that took us to war in Iraq. And, thus the same network now being employed to expand this war to Iran."ť
From 1980 to 1987 Gates served as counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, working with Sen. Russell Long of Louisiana,
son of the state's former Gov. Huey Long, who was assassinated at age 42 as he was preparing a presidential campaign. James Farley, postmaster general under President Franklin Roosevelt, had run a "penny postcard"ť poll confirming that if Huey Long actually ran for president, Roosevelt could not be re-elected.
Fifty years later Russell Long remained convinced that Roosevelt's people had killed his father.
At a 2002 speech Gates gave in London, he met "John Doe,"ť related to one of the well-known people who had endorsed two of Gates' earlier books. Soon afterward, Doe assured him that if Gates undertook the research and analysis the results of which appear in Guilt, the evidence would identify who killed Huey Long, and why. The facts Gates assembled point not to Roosevelt's people but to the syndicate identified in Guilt.
The brilliantly provocative Guilt by Association consists of nine chapters: "Game Theory and the Mass Murder of 9/11"ť; "Organized Crime in Arizona"ť; "John McCain and Financial Frauds"ť; "McCain Family Secret: The Cover-Up"ť; "The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime"ť; "Money, Democracy and the Great Divide"ť; "The New Anti-Semitism"ť; "Would Obama Be Better?"ť; and "The Way Forward."ť
In the first chapter Gates illustrates the intergenerational sophistication with which neoconservatives "prepared the minds"ť of the American public to invade Iraq in response to 9/11. Academics and think tanks pushed Samuel Huntington's 1996 Clash of Civilizations to promote a "clash consensus"ť-five years before 9/11. That same year Richard Perle along with other neocons such as Douglas Feith wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm"ť for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. This helped lay more "mental threads"ť for removing Saddam Hussain. Then Senators McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Distracted by the Monica Lewinsky affair, President Bill Clinton signed it.
Four days after the destruction of the World Trade Towers, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was urging President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Not only was there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but there was no real connection between Saddam's secular regime and the deeply religious al-Qaeda. At the same time, other Zionists from the U.S. Defense Department under Wolfowitz and, not so coincidentally, Feith were feeding false intelligence to the White House. The war would not be costly, according to Wolfowitz, and the entirely unnecessary and illegal war was launched.
In the chapter on "The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime,"ť Gates describes a John McCain who was either "ignorant about-or complicit in"ť Russian organized crime. During Boris Yeltsin's first term as president of Russia, a handful of "oligarchs' financially pillaged Russia. Six of the "Big Seven"ť oligarchs, whom Gates terms Ashkenazis, qualify for Israeli citizenship.
McCain described Mikhail Khodorovsky, the most infamous of Russia's corrupt oil oligarchs, as a "political prisoner."ť Notes Gates: "To claim Khodorovsky as a "political prisoner' requires a closer look at how, at 32 years of age, a single Russian-Ashkenazi citizen amassed state-owned assets worth more than $30 billion."ť Gates goes on to document the widespread criminality involved in Khodorovsky's billions.
"To solve this systemic criminality,"ť Gates explains, "requires that a broad base of Americans understand how this "fields-within-fields' modus operandi operates unseen yet in plain sight, and how its operations progress working through people whose profiled needs become the means for influencing their behavior."ť
Guilt describes how Americans were induced to freely choose the very forces that endanger their freedom. Thus the role of those masterful at waging "war by deception"ť (the motto of the Israeli Mossad) by displacing facts with what the "mark"ť (i.e., the U.S.) could be deceived to believe: for example, that Iraq had nuclear weapons and mobile biological weapons laboratories and that the secular Saddam Hussain had ties with the fundamentalists of al-Qaeda.
Crafted as a wake-up call, the author documents how Tel Aviv wields control over U.S. foreign policy in an environment where lawmakers have been intimidated by the Israel lobby. "U.S. national security,"ť Gates writes, "requires a rejection of the self-deception that Israel operates as a trustworthy ally in an unstable region while ignoring its multi-decade role in provoking and sustaining instability."ť
As Gates points out, the charge of anti-Semitism is used to misdirect and intimidate. As the criminality he documents becomes transparent, moderate Jews in fact are emerging as allies. The Zionist component-which Gates convincingly portrays as
ideology in the service of criminality
-has as its goal an extensive, Jews-only realm in an oil-rich region.
The facts confirm that Tel Aviv will never agree to peace with the Palestinians, as that would preclude their expansionist agenda for a Greater Israel. An oft-employed "entropy strategy"ť remains Israel's means to preclude settlement of the conflict. Indeed, Huntington's Clash of Civilizations is revealed as only the latest in a long series of manipulations-each of which is designed to ensure a plausible evildoer. Meanwhile, fundamentalist Jews catalyze serial conflicts of opposites, while
this transnational criminal syndicate profits off the misery of both.
Andrew I. Killgore is publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government
By Grant F. Smith, Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), 2008, paperback, 340 pp. List: $14.95; AET: $11.
Reviewed by Delinda C. Hanley
Books
The declassification on June 10, 2008 of long-secret Department of Justice (DOJ) documents is the springboard for Grant F. Smith's latest book revealing the inner workings of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This ground-breaking study spotlights the Israel lobby's key architect, Isaiah L. Kenen, and uncovers how he and subsequent Israel-firsters morphed from being openly registered as foreign agents, who should have remained employees of the Israeli Embassy's Office of Information, into "American"ť domestic lobbyists for Israel, a far more benign, if dishonest, nomenclature.
Smith's very readable book reproduces and analyzes the highly deceptive Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) filings Kenen made while he was still an employee of the Israeli government in New York. It proceeds on to the American Zionist Council (ACZ), the precursor organization where AIPAC gestated. Referencing internal DOJ records, the book painstakingly documents previously undisclosed attempts by the Justice Department and dissenting Jewish groups, including the American Council for Judaism, to close down Kenen's Israeli-financed political propaganda operation-or to at least make it openly register and disclose its activities under FARA.
Thanks to Kenen's efforts, AIPAC's Zionist financial backers succeeded in laundering money, purchasing arms, smuggling stolen U.S. military hardware, and launching Israel's nuclear and military weapons industries. They paid for some of it with tax-exempt "charitable"ť donations, though a far larger percentage came from U.S. tax-dollars-without ever having to come out of the shadows.
Coming 20 years after Kenen's death, Smith's book is a powerful reminder to readers about the effectiveness of stealth public relations and the importance of framing stories for the mainstream media. (Kenen also launched the Near East Report, AIPAC's biweekly flagship publication, which is still a vital public relations tool for Israel.) This close examination of AIPAC's birth and struggle for power is a valuable lesson about nascent foreign interest lobbies, prosecutorial discretion, and the subversion of the rule of law by political elites.
America's Defense Line reads like a fascinating spy thriller or "who done it"ť that is hard to put down-until, that is, one remembers that AIPAC and its supporters are still at it-and, usually, getting away with it. (Stay tuned for the espionage trial of former AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.)
Readers of Smith's book, perhaps alongside Jeff Gates' Guilt By Association, will have all the history and information necessary to loosen AIPAC's grip upon our nation once and for all-but only if we all insist that the rule of law once again become the law of the land.
Delinda C. Hanley is news editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
I call you on the statement "Assange even stated that he received the DNC material from Seth Rich!"
Wikileaks is dogmatic on the protection of sources. Wikileaks did provide a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Seth Rich's murderer, however.
You're correct, but Assange did offer $20,000 for information on Rich's murder. One could infer this was Assange's way of telling us his murder is related to the leaked emails without technically divulging his source.
Your question is absolutely valid! Assange said that the first batch of documents he published were given to him by a 'democratic staffer from the DNC'. After Seth was murdered - he offered the monies to find the murderer. I should have stated it that way in my comment. Be as it may Assange connected the dots for me when using the verbiage 'democratic staffer - DNC - Seth Rich - murdered. My bad!
You don't have to wonder since Craig Murray has said the source was domestic. That is the absurdity of this entire affair--we have the intermediary on record, a career diplomat, and no one has publicly questioned him. This whole thing is akin to the cops catching a white guy leaving a house with stolen goods, then they go into the house to investigate and find a dead body and there is another guy standing there with a smoking gun and then they decide not only to ignore the murder, they put out a warrant for a black guy who was nowhere near the crime, letting the original burgler off the hook too. That's how idiotic and off the trail of the important crimes these guys are. I mean why the hell are we not talking about the legit classified docs that Hillary allowed to be pilfered by multiple foreign (and probably domestic) sources anymore? Seems to me that is the actual crime.
> How about we send Congressional children and cia children first into battle against the Russians if they feel so strongly about it. <
Well, "someone's children" are already being sent to what could easily be the "Front Line" in a land battle against Mother Russia, and you can safely bet that none of these cannon-fodder will have families "with connections". THEIR children are all assured comfortable office jobs in the Pentagon, or similar.
California just hired Eric "Too Big To Jail" Holder as its point man against Trump deporting the illegals. I am dumbfounded. He is obviously such a whore and incompetent/unethical attorney. I figured he would be smart and stay on the gold course. Shows you how stupid and blindly partisan Californians are.
Add Holder to the list of those who have lied so much that nobody believes jack shit from them. Dems don't get it. The Clintonistas have gone back to the well about one thousand times too many. They are sooooo old and worn. Incapable of flexing with the wind and forming new ideas.
Nancy Pelosi is starting to look her age all of the sudden. Put on about ten pounds. And wrinkles and saggy jowels.
BTW: We don't need new ideas, just the Constitution.
Where's the collusion?
Even former DNI Director Clapper said there is no evidence.
Glenn Greenwald
explains: "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures
and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly
unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did
after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions
of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which,
at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day,
which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven
and Trump will be removed.
Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that
have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them
have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no
basis in reason or evidence.
The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President
Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly
notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton's most vocal CIA surrogates.
In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but
also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty,
claiming, "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited
Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum
to "cast doubt" on "allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded
with Russia." "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians
here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all," he said, adding, "There's
no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's
a lot of people looking for it."
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/
Democrats will do just about anything to avoid sacking their failed, corrupt,
sclerotic leadership.
Anachronism
said in reply to JohnH...
◾The White
House also tweeted that former intelligence director James Clapper was
"right" to say there was "no evidence of collusion between Russia and
Trump Campaign." But Clapper said he had no such information "at the
time," meaning before he left office in January.
The White House, in a tweet, and Spicer, in his daily press briefing,
attempted to dismiss the possibility of collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russian officials by citing comments made by intelligence
leaders in the Obama administration, as well as by Democratic and Republican
leaders who have been briefed on the investigation to date.
But the White House misrepresented the comments of those officials.
As the attached video shows, the White House tweet left out an important
qualifier. Comey said Clapper was "right" to say that there was no evidence
of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign contained in the
declassified report released Jan. 6 on Russian activities during the
2016 presidential election.
Clapper made his remarks about the report in a "Meet the Press" interview
on March 5, when he was asked whether there were "improper contacts
between the Trump campaign and Russian officials."
"We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,'
that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence,
that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members
of the Trump campaign and the Russians," Clapper said. "There was no
evidence of that included in our report."
Clapper went on to say "at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion."
But he added, "This could have unfolded or become available in the time
since I left the government."
Clapper also said, "I do think, though, it is in everyone's interest,
in the current president's interests, in the Democrats' interests, in
the Republican interest, in the country's interest, to get to the bottom
of all this."
"Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd asked, "You admit your report that
you released in January doesn't get to the bottom of this?"
"It did - well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent
of the evidence we had at the time," Clapper said. "Whether there is
more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations
will be revelatory, I don't know."
Asked what the Senate intelligence committee could learn through
an investigation that Clapper's agency could not, Clapper replied, "Well,
I think they can look at this from a broader context than we could."
So Clapper did not say there was no collusion. He said there was
no evidence of collusion "at the time" he left office in January. And
he went on to say that he believed a Senate investigation was warranted
to clear the air.
Key Dem points to evidence of collusion between Russia, Team Trump
03/23/17 08:00AM - Updated 03/23/17 01:37PM
By Steve Benen
. . .
But on MSNBC yesterday afternoon, the California Democrat again talked
to Chuck Todd, and this time he took another step forward when describing
the nature of the evidence.
TODD: But you admit, all you have right now is a circumstantial case?
SCHIFF: Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than
that. And I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial
evidence now. So, again, I think -
TODD: You have seen direct evidence of collusion?
SCHIFF: I don't to want go into specifics, but I will say that there
is evidence that is not circumstantial, and it very much worthy of investigation.
So, that is what we ought to do.
When we contacted the congressman's office, asking if Schiff may
have misspoken, and giving him a chance to walk this back, his office
said Schiff meant what he said. . . .
There's some fire along with all the smoke being generated.
"officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive"
"investigation is ongoing"
" began looking into possible coordination"
"a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe"
"One law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests"
" it appeared"
"it's premature to draw that inference"
" it's largely circumstantial"
"cannot yet prove that collusion took place"
"CNN has not confirmed"
" according to U.S. intelligence agencies"
" investigations are notoriously lengthy"
"can make it difficult for investigators to bring criminal charges"
"Investigators continue to analyze"
"unverified information"
"suggested coordination"
Reply
Thursday,
March 23, 2017 at 08:43 AM
Gerald
said in reply to RGC...
And what
did you expect at this point? A little investigative realism, please.
Reply
Thursday,
March 23, 2017 at 11:33 AM
Paine
said in reply to Anachronism ...
Assume
you are a business man looking for experts on Russia tht share your
Dovish views and your business posture and view point
Surely you'll scoop up Russian tools and mercenaries etc
My guess these guys operated beyond trumps awareness and control
in as Much as they were Russian state contract drones etc
US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have
coordinated with Russians
By Pamela Brown, Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Jim
Sciutto, CNN
US officials: Trump associates may have coordinated with
Russians 14:11
Washington (CNN) - The FBI has information that indicates
associates of President Donald Trump communicated with
suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the
release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's
campaign, US officials told CNN.
This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring
to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before
Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's
ties to Russia, according to one source.
The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes
human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and
accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S.
officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI
counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may
have taken place, though officials cautioned that the
information was not conclusive and that the investigation is
ongoing.
In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began
looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign
associates and suspected Russian operatives because the
bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or
reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an
agent of a foreign power."
The White House did not comment and the FBI declined to
comment.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer maintained Monday
after Comey's testimony that there was no evidence to suggest
any collusion took place.
"Investigating it and having proof of it are two different
things," Spicer said.
One law enforcement official said the information in hand
suggests "people connected to the campaign were in contact
and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release
information when it was ready." But other U.S. officials who
spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from
the information gathered so far since it's largely
circumstantial.
The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but
the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of
the investigation, the officials said.
The FBI has already been investigating four former Trump
campaign associates -- Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger
Stone and Carter Page -- for contacts with Russians known to
US intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts and
CNN has not confirmed any of them are the subjects of the
information the FBI is reviewing.
One of the obstacles the sources say the FBI now faces in
finding conclusive intelligence is that communications
between Trump's associates and Russians have ceased in recent
months given the public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the
Trump campaign. Some Russian officials have also changed
their methods of communications, making monitoring more
difficult, the officials said.
Last July, Russian intelligence agencies began
orchestrating the release of hacked emails stolen in a breach
of the Democratic National Committee and associated
organizations, as well as email accounts belonging to Clinton
campaign officials, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.
The Russian operation was also in part focused on the
publication of so-called "fake news" stories aimed at
undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign. But FBI investigators
say they are less focused on the coordination and publication
of those "fake news" stories, in part because those
publications are generally protected free speech.
The release of the stolen emails, meanwhile, transformed
an ordinary cyber-intrusion investigation into a much bigger
case handled by the FBI's counterintelligence division.
FBI counterintelligence investigations are notoriously
lengthy and often involve some of the U.S. government's most
highly classified programs, such as those focused on
intelligence-gathering, which can make it difficult for
investigators to bring criminal charges without exposing
those programs.
Investigators continue to analyze the material and
information from multiple sources for any possible
indications of coordination, according to US officials.
Director Comey in Monday's hearing refused to reveal what
specifically the FBI was looking for or who they're focusing
on.
US officials said the information was not drawn from the
leaked dossier of unverified information compiled by a former
British intelligence official compiled for Trump's political
opponents, though the dossier also suggested coordination
between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.
There's little
doubt in my mind that Trump's team did in fact collude with
the Russians, and that the investigation will ultimately come
to the same conclusion. That's when the fun begins, if
impeachment proceedings can be called fun. Trump will deny,
deny, deny that he had any knowledge of the collusion; the
fact that he's a serial liar won't prevent most Republicans
from voting against his impeachment. Only Trump can save us
by doing a Nixon and resigning. He won't though, and we'll be
right back where we are, with one huge exception: we'll have
a proven traitor sitting in the White House, kept there by a
spineless GOP.
Agreed. If in fact the FBI can prove substantial ties between
the Russians and the Trump team co-ordinating the Wikileak
email dump, that has to qualify as "high crimes and
misdemeanors".
And given that, at this point, President
Cheeto is so unpopular, plus the FBI's evidence (yet to be
proven), they would almost have to vote for impeachment or
risk losing re-election in their home districts.
Go make some popcorn, grab your favorite beverage, sit
back and enjoy the sound of them imploding.
Like Whitewater, this investigation will take years and may
well come up empty.
Meanwhile, Democrats can obsess about
how unfair the election was, deny any notion that Hillary was
a lousy candidate, and refuse to figure out how to talk to
working people or come up with any kind of coherent economic
message.
Trump-Putin shows that they are willing to do most any
distraction to keep from having to keep their eye on the
ball!
As a result, Democrats will mostly likely circle the
wagons to foist another mealy mouthed neoliberal on the
electorate in 2020 in the tradition of Gore, Kerry, and
Hillary, a candidate who will almost certainly assure Trump a
second term.
Despite a string of congressional losses, the sclerotic,
corrupt leadership refuses get rid of their losing
leadership. It would appear that Democrats have grown to love
playing Washington Generals to Republicans' Harlem
Globetrotters.
The current requirement for a duopoly assures that there
is always a place for losers.
Mark my words: "The Trump-Putin investigation [will take]
years because [investigators can't] find any wrongdoing from
[Trump-Putin] and so then continued looking into
[Trump-Putin] whenever they could, simply to keep the witch
hunt going."
If they had any evidence beyond innuendo and
hearsay, we would have seen some of it by now.
Trump-Putin has become an elaborate distraction to keep
Democrats from looking honestly at their failure, and to keep
the American public entertained as Trump guts the remnants of
their safety net.
And the plot thickens. Whoever said may you live in interesting times......had no idea. Can you feel the desperation from the
filthy corrupt democrats? The demonic spirits that reside in them are going berserk. The light is starting to shine on them and
their evil deeds are more transparent than ever. It's only gonna get better
Fox better rehire Napolitano before it is too late. But it is too late for the Wall Street Journal comparing Trump to 'a drunk'
clinging to 'an empty gin bottle' in scathing editorial.
10:05 a.m. It's a small issue in the grand scheme of things, but the effort to describe the Russia
Today
network as diabolical propaganda without mentioning Voice of America and Radio Liberty/Radio
Free Europe continues to amaze. Apparently Russia is the only country that funds a media network
intended to influence foreign audiences.
Nunes in his opening statement characterizes RT as a disinformation effort that "traffics in anti-American
conspiracies," rivaling Soviet propaganda. Here it is hard not to think of the joint intel report
that cited the network's reporting on Occupy Wall Street, "corporate greed" and fracking as evidence
of its anti-American nature. It also decried the network's use of the term "surveillance state" to
describe the U.S., which will be pretty ironic considering the content of today's hearing.
Again, it's a small point, but by these standards pretty much any alternative media outlet is "anti-American,"
and it's alarming to hear Democrats later ape this language in reference to RT.
10:20 a.m. Schiff delivers a long speech that essentially lays out the Trump-Russia conspiracy. Twitter
seems to be unanimous that it's a powerful piece of rhetoric.
Among other things, he unblinkingly cites the Christopher Steele's "golden showers" dossier as
a source. This seems like a pretty intense political calculation given that Michael Morell, who would
have been Hillary Clinton's CIA director, basically called the dossier useless just last week. The
dossier "doesn't take you anywhere, I think," Morell said. But it's all over this hearing, with multiple
Democratic members citing it. What that means, who knows, but it's interesting to see that level
of commitment from the Democrats.
10:32 a.m. Comey creates the big headline of the day by saying, "I have been authorized ... to
confirm that the FBI is investigating" the Russia story.
This both is and isn't big news. Although it's the first time it's been stated publicly, the existence
of this investigation has been common knowledge for a long time. Most of the leaked reports on the
topic have included this information.
For instance, The New York Times story from February 14th, about Trump officials having had "contact"
with Russian intelligence, spoke definitively of an investigation into possible collusion between
the Trump campaign and the Putin government.
Still, that doesn't mean Comey had to do what he did today. Is this payback to Trump for accusing
the FBI of illegally wiretapping him? Is it a good-faith effort to square the ledger in terms of
his previous highly controversial decision to out the Clinton email investigation? It's curious and
bold either way. One wonders if Trump might fire him.
The true newsworthy detail, of course, isn't that Comey disclosed the existence of an FBI investigation
into Trump – as Democrats should know better than anyone, that doesn't necessarily mean anything
– but that Comey is doing this now and didn't do so earlier, before the election. Obviously, he made
a different choice with regard to the Clinton email story, and the Democrats rightfully should be
furious about that.
10:36 a.m. Nunes asks Rogers if Russians hacked vote tallies in Michigan. Rogers answers no, noting
that the NSA doesn't do domestic surveillance. Nunes goes on to ask about Pennsylvania, Ohio and
Wisconsin, knowing Rogers won't answer. It's a totally meaningless exchange, but instantly becomes
Twitter fodder:
This is what these hearings are for, primarily. Except for very rare occasions when mega-careful
witnesses like Comey and Rogers decide to give up tidbits, for the most part these hearings are held
so that House members can ping-pong talking points off witnesses, and then circulate clips of themselves
asking questions to which they already know the answers.
10:39 a.m. Florida Republican Tom Rooney asks Rogers about incidental collection of data about
"U.S. persons" under the Section 702 program. Admiral Rogers' explanation for how they use that data,
and how they protect the rights of U.S. companies and citizens – redacting or "masking" identities,
for instance – is almost comically non-reassuring.
Reading between the lines, the NSA seems to have basically unrestricted ability to snoop on foreigners.
When their targets are speaking to American persons or communicating with American companies, the
agency also seems to have an absurdly permissive mandate to listen to whatever they want to listen
to. Only later, it seems, do they figure out how to justify it legally.
This is an example of how the hyper-partisan nature of these hearings spoils American politics.
Liberals especially should be seriously concerned about such surveillance overreach by the intelligence
agencies, and also about leaks directed against individuals by intelligence officials. Similarly,
conservatives should be mortified by the possibility of foreign interference in our electoral process.
But because both of these issues are tied in highly specific ways to the political fortunes of
Donald Trump, each issue will be ignored by one side and thundered over by the other.
11:03 a.m. Schiff asks both men if Obama wiretapped Trump as Trump claimed. "I have no information
that supports those tweets," Comey says. Asked if he engages in McCarthyism, Comey says he tries
"not to engage in any isms of any kind, including McCarthyism." He gets laughs. Comey is a very,
very slick witness, difficult to read.
An interesting development in this hearing is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are
treating these witnesses as hostile. And both Comey and Rogers are in their own ways giving both
Nunes and Schiff what they want so far. They're allowing members of both parties to make speeches
and ask their suggestive questions, while giving them next to nothing.
11:19 a.m. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, last seen spending two expensive years stepping
on his weenie in a pathetic effort to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton through the
Benghazi probe, comes on to the delight of, well, nobody. Gowdy is the first to cross
over into open unfriendliness. Ominously, he starts trying to get Comey to say reporters
could be held criminally liable for disclosing secret information.
Gowdy later scores
a point by getting Comey to explain a hypothetical: how he would go about investigating
the leak of a U.S. citizen's name that appears in a newspaper. (He's clearly talking
about Flynn.)
Comey, with the caveat that he's not talking about anyone specific, lays out how he
would do that, talking about identifying the "universe" of people with access to that
information and then using investigative techniques to further narrow the field.
Indirectly, Comey confirms Gowdy's interpretation of a "felonious" disclosure to a
newspaper that must be prosecuted. It sets up a demand that Comey investigate and
prosecute that leak.
Gowdy does in fact go on to make such a demand. But Comey cockblocks Gowdy and says
he "can't" promise that he will investigate the leaks.
Gowdy looks like someone just stole his box of Mike and Ikes. He seems surprised,
like he didn't expect Comey's answer. Comey smiles and glares at Gowdy like the
third-rater he is.
11:43 a.m. Jim Himes asks Comey if Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union. Comey
says yes. Glad we cleared that up.
11:52 a.m. Mike Conaway of Texas points out that determining the source of a hacking
campaign is a forensic enterprise, but asks how they determine intent. In the process,
he pins down Rogers as saying he had a "lower level" of confidence in the idea that the
Russians preferred Trump to Clinton.
Conaway then plunges into a bizarre metaphor about how his wife went to Texas Tech,
so he roots for the Red Raiders and dislikes the Longhorns, or something. Conaway seemed
to want to ask if it is possible to root against Texas without liking the Red Raiders,
or the opposite, but pretty much everyone watching instantly loses track of whether
Hillary Clinton is Texas or Texas Tech in the metaphor.
Comey confidently goes with it. "Wherever the Red Raiders are playing, you want them
to win and their opposition to lose," he says. He goes on to elaborate on the metaphor,
talking about how the Russians later in the year knew the Red Raiders were going to
lose, "so you hope key people on the other team get hurt so they are not as tough an
opponent down the road."
The substantively interesting thing here is Comey's sly disclosure that the Russians
late in the game expected Trump to lose the election. But his deft handling of Conaway's
bumbling hypothetical overshadows the answer.
12:21 p.m. Nunes tries on a new rhetorical line: It's absurd to say Russians prefer
Republicans, because Reagan!
This is silly, of course, because Trump is a different animal from Reagan, but then
Comey and Rogers do something equally silly. On the question of whether the Russians
preferred Romney or McCain over Obama, they both look at each other like it's crazy to
suggest they ever considered the question. Isn't it their job to know things like that?
They're clearly dissembling.
12:25 p.m. Peter King, the most mumbly member on the panel, asks about the
report that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe
told Reince Priebus that one of the
New York Times
stories on Russia was "BS."
"Is there any way you can comment on whether or not Mr. McCabe told that to Mr.
Priebus?" King asks.
Comey gives a classically Comeyish answer:
"I can't, Mr. King, but I can agree with your general premise. Leaks have always been
a problem. I read over the weekend [about] George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
complaining about them. But I do agree in the last six weeks and months there apparently
have been a lot of instances of conversations appearing in the media, and a lot of it is
dead wrong. Which is one of the challenges, because we don't correct it. It's made it
difficult because people are talking, or at least reporters are saying people are
talking, in ways that have struck me as being unusually active."
Translation: blow me, I'm not telling you what McCabe said to Priebus. King basically
thanks them both and retreats. King will spend much of the day apologizing for asking
perfectly legitimate questions.
Although the hearing has generated tons of headlines before it hits the halfway mark,
it's really a giant tease.
Both Comey and Rogers indicated from the start that they will reserve their more
candid testimony for a later classified hearing with these same members. For the public,
this means one thing: we'll continue to get no real answers, and a heavily partisan and
politicized version of events, no matter what happens. So long as the investigations
aren't closed, and the real information is kept behind closed doors, both parties can
pursue their rhetorical campaigns unchecked. And the testimony of people like Comey and
Rogers will be useful only for driving interest in the reading of tea leaves.
There should probably be three entirely separate investigations. One should concern
the question of whether, or to what extent, the Russians interfered with the election.
That's a non-partisan question, really, one everyone should care about, but Republicans
won't do anything about it because they will perceive the entire issue as a partisan
attack on Trump.
A second inquiry could deal with the question of illegal/politicized leaks of secret
surveillance data coming from the "IC." Again, in reality this is a non-partisan
concern. Were congressional Democrats really interested in getting at whatever the
intelligence community has on Trump, a bipartisan inquiry of this nature would be an
excellent pressure point.
Lastly, you could have a completely separate set of hearings into the question of
whether or not the Trump campaign engaged in anything untoward in its dealings with
Russians last year. If there's anything to this, the public needs to hear it, and it all
needs to be public.
But don't expect answers anytime soon. Hearings like today's only add to the
frustrating strangeness of this scandal, and it looks like this will continue for quite
some time.
The mainstream U.S. media has virtually banned any commentary that doesn't treat Russian President
Putin as the devil, but a surprising breach in the groupthink has occurred in Foreign Affairs magazine,
reports Gilbert Doctorow.
Realistically, no major change in U.S. foreign and defense policy is possible without substantial
support from the U.S. political class, but a problem occurs when only one side of a debate gets a
fair hearing and the other side gets ignored or marginalized. That is the current situation regarding
U.S. policy toward Russia.
For the past couple of decades, only the neoconservatives and their close allies, the liberal
interventionists, have been allowed into the ring to raise their gloves in celebration of an uncontested
victory over policy. On the very rare occasion when a "realist" or a critic of "regime change" wars
somehow manages to sneak into the ring, they find both arms tied behind them and receive the predictable
pounding.
While this predicament has existed since the turn of this past century, it has grown more pronounced
since the U.S.-Russia relationship slid into open confrontation in 2014 after the U.S.-backed coup
in Ukraine overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and sparking a civil war that led Crimea
to secede and join Russia and Ukraine's eastern Donbass region to rise up in rebellion.
But the only narrative that the vast majority of Americans have heard – and that the opinion centers
of Washington and New York have allowed – is the one that blames everything on "Russian aggression."
Those who try to express dissenting opinions – noting, for instance,
the intervention in Ukrainian affairs by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland as well
as the U.S.-funded undermining on Yanukovych's government – have been essentially banned from both
the U.S. mass media and professional journals.
When a handful of independent news sites (including Consortiumnews.com) tried to report on the
other side of the story, they were denounced as "Russian propagandists" and
ended up on "blacklists" promoted by The Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets.
An Encouraging Sign
That is why it is encouraging that Foreign Affairs magazine, the preeminent professional journal
of American diplomacy, took the extraordinary step (extraordinary at least in the current environment)
of publishing Robert English's
article , entitled "Russia, Trump, and a new Détente," that challenges the prevailing groupthink
and does so with careful scholarship.
A wintery scene in Moscow, near Red Square. (Photo by Robert Parry)
In effect, English's article trashes the positions of all Foreign Affairs' featured contributors
for the past several years. But it must be stressed that there are no new discoveries of fact or
new insights that make English's essay particularly valuable. What he has done is to bring together
the chief points of the counter-current and set them out with extraordinary writing skills, efficiency
and persuasiveness of argumentation. Even more important, he has been uncompromising.
The facts laid out by English could have been set out by one of several experienced and informed
professors or practitioners of international relations. But English had the courage to follow the
facts where they lead and the skill to convince the Foreign Affairs editors to take the chance on
allowing readers to see some unpopular truths even though the editors now will probably come under
attack themselves as "Kremlin stooges."
The overriding thesis is summed up at the start of the essay: "For 25 years, Republicans and Democrats
have acted in ways that look much the same to Moscow. Washington has pursued policies that have ignored
Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military
alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests. It is no wonder that Russia pushes back. The
wonder is that the U.S. policy elite doesn't get this, even as foreign-affairs neophyte Trump apparently
does."
English's article goes back to the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and explains why
and how U.S. policy toward Russia was wrong and wrong again. He debunks the notion that Boris Yeltsin
brought in a democratic age, which Vladimir Putin undid after coming to power.
English explains how the U.S. meddled in Russian domestic politics in the mid-1990s to falsify
election results and ensure Yeltsin's continuation in office despite his unpopularity for bringing
on an economic Depression that average Russians remember bitterly to this day. That was a time when
the vast majority of Russians equated democracy with "shitocracy."
English describes how the Russian economic and political collapse in the 1990s was exploited by
the Clinton administration. He tells why currently fashionable U.S. critics of Putin are dead wrong
when they fail to acknowledge Putin's achievements in restructuring the economy, tax collection,
governance, improvements in public health and more which account for his spectacular popularity ratings
today.
English details all the errors and stupidities of the Obama administration in its handling of
Russia and Putin, faulting President Obama and Secretary of State (and later presidential candidate)
Hillary Clinton for all of their provocative and insensitive words and deeds. What we see in U.S.
policy, as described by English, is the application of double standards, a prosecutorial stance towards
Russia, and outrageous lies about the country and its leadership foisted on the American public.
Then English takes on directly all of the paranoia over Russia's alleged challenge to Western
democratic processes. He calls attention instead to how U.S. foreign policy and the European Union's
own policies in the new Member States and candidate Member States have created all the conditions
for a populist revolt by buying off local elites and subjecting the broad populace in these countries
to pauperization.
English concludes his essay with a call to give détente with Putin and Russia a chance.
Who Is Robert English?
English's Wikipedia entry and biographical data provided on his University of Southern California
web pages make it clear that he has quality academic credentials: Master of Public Administration
and PhD. in politics from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton
University. He also has a solid collection of scholarly publications to his credit as author or co-editor
with major names in the field of Russian-Soviet intellectual history.
Red Square in Moscow with a winter festival to the left and the Kremlin to the right. (Photo by
Robert Parry)
He spent six years doing studies for U.S. intelligence and defense: 1982–1986 at the Department
of Defense and 1986-88 at the U.S. Committee for National Security. And he has administrative experience
as the Director of the USC School of International Relations.
Professor English is not without his political ambitions. During the 2016 presidential election
campaign, he tried to secure a position as foreign policy adviser to Democratic hopeful Sen. Bernie
Sanders. In pursuit of this effort, English had the backing of progressives at The Nation,
which in February 2016 published an article of his entitled "Bernie Sanders, the Foreign Policy
Realist of 2016."
English's objective was to demonstrate how wrong many people were to see in Sanders a visionary
utopian incapable of defending America's strategic interests. Amid the praise of Sanders in this
article, English asserts that Sanders is as firm on Russia as Hillary Clinton.
By the end of the campaign, however, several tenacious neocons had attached themselves to Sanders's
inner circle and English departed. So, one might size up English as just one more opportunistic academic
who will do whatever it takes to land a top job in Washington.
While there is nothing new in such "flexibility," there is also nothing necessarily offensive
in it. From the times of Machiavelli if not earlier, intellectuals have tended to be guns for hire.
The first open question is how skilled they are in managing their sponsors as well as in managing
their readers in the public. But there is also a political realism in such behavior, advancing a
politician who might be a far better leader than the alternatives while blunting the attack lines
that might be deployed against him or her.
Then, there are times, such as the article for Foreign Affairs, when an academic may be speaking
for his own analysis of an important situation whatever the political costs or benefits. Sources
who have long been close to English assure me that the points in his latest article match his true
beliefs.
The Politics of Geopolitics
Yet, it is one thing to have a courageous author and knowledgeable scholar. It is quite another
to find a publisher willing to take the heat for presenting views that venture outside the mainstream
Establishment. In that sense, it is stunning that Foreign Affairs chose to publish English and let
him destroy the groupthink that has dominated the magazine and the elite foreign policy circles for
years.
President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20
Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor
Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The only previous exception to the magazine's lockstep was an article by University of Chicago
professor John Mearsheimer entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault" published in September
2014. That essay shot holes in Official Washington's recounting of the events leading up to the Russian
annexation of Crimea and intervention in the Donbass.
It was a shock to many of America's leading foreign policy insiders who, in the next issue, rallied
like a collection of white cells to attack the invasive thinking. But there were some Foreign Affairs
readers – about one-third of the commenters – who voiced agreement with Mearsheimer's arguments.
But that was a one-time affair. Mearsheimer appears to have been tolerated because he was one of
the few remaining exponents of the Realist School in the United States. But he was not a Russia specialist.
Foreign Affairs may have turned to Robert English because the editors, as insider-insiders, found
themselves on the outside of the Trump administration looking in. The magazine's 250,000 subscribers,
which include readers from across the globe, expect Foreign Affairs to have some lines into the corridors
of power.
In that regard, the magazine has been carrying water for the State Department since the days of
the Cold War. For instance, in the spring issue of 2007, the magazine published a cooked-up
article signed by Ukrainian politician Yuliya Tymoshenko on why the West must contain Russia,
a direct response to Putin's
famous Munich
speech in which he accused the United States of destabilizing the world through the Iraq War
and other policies.
Anticipating Hillary Clinton's expected election, Foreign Affairs' editors did not hedge their
bets in 2016. They sided with the former Secretary of State and hurled rhetorical bricks at Donald
Trump. In their September issue, they compared him to a tin-pot populist dictator in South America.
Thus, they found themselves cut off after Trump's surprising victory. For the first time in many
years in the opening issue of the New Year following a U.S. presidential election, the magazine did
not feature an interview with the incoming Secretary of State or some other cabinet member.
Though Official Washington's anti-Russian frenzy seems to be reaching a crescendo on Capitol Hill
with strident hearings on alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election, the underlying reality
is that the neocons are descending into a fury over their sudden loss of power.
The hysteria was highlighted when neocon Sen. John McCain lashed out at Sen. Rand Paul after the
libertarian senator objected to special consideration for McCain's resolution supporting Montenegro's
entrance into NATO. In a stunning breach of Senate protocol, a livid McCain accused Paul of "working
for Vladimir Putin."
Meanwhile, some Democratic leaders have begun
cautioning their anti-Trump followers not to expect too much from congressional investigations
into the supposed Trump-Russia collusion on the election.
In publishing Robert English's essay challenging much of the anti-Russian groupthink that has
dominated Western geopolitics over the past few years, Foreign Affairs may be finally bending to
the recognition that it is risking its credibility if it continues to put all its eggs in the we-hate-Russia
basket.
That hedging of its bets may be a case of self-interest, but it also may be an optimistic sign
that the martyred Fifteenth Century Catholic Church reformer Jan Hus was right when he maintained
that eventually the truth will prevail.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book, Does Russia Have
a Future? was published in August 2015.
Rachel Maddow looks at the role of Russian bot networks and cyber war tactics during the 2016 U.S.
election and notes that those things didn't just go away after the election. She proves to be a talented
anti-Russian warmonger. Very impressive piece of propaganda. Classic brainwashing.
MSNC clearly is in neo-McCarthyism camp and try to capitalize on anti-Russian hysteria. Of cause,
Rachel Maddow was and still is a Hillary puppet, so she should have her credibility already destroyed.
but people still watching her show and that's a problem. Previously she supported this neocon warmonger,
now she became one. The problem with her blabbing is that accounting to FBI Russians have written off
Trump in Summer 2016.
Looks like Democratic party brass can no longer control the anti-Russian hysteria why wiped up,
even if they realized that they went too far and the ability to lick thier wound by launching anti-Russian
hysteria and getting it to the sky level pitch has some adverse effects in a long run ...
Notable quotes:
"... This anti-Russian warmonger Rachel Maddow is a Hillary puppet. That is a known fact. She has
been dyed-in-the-wool supported neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign. ..."
"... A company related to a NATO aligned "think-tank", which is financed by weapon producers and
other special interests, raises allegations against Russia that are quite possibly unfounded. These
allegations are then used by NATO to build up a public boogeyman picture of "the Russian enemy". In
consequence the budgets for NATO militaries and the profits of weapon producers increase. ..."
"... It is a simple racket, but with potentially very bad consequences for all of us. ..."
This anti-Russian warmonger Rachel Maddow is a Hillary puppet. That is a known fact. She
has been dyed-in-the-wool supported neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign.
All her blows were below the belt.
This selective reporting of pieces of information is actually pretty disingenuous. Anybody
using those methods and by selective reporting of bits of information that support your viewpoint
can be painted as a Russian agent. Even EMichael :-)
The problem with her blabbing is that according to FBI Russians have written off Trump in Summer
2016.
Listening to this show by MSNBC is so disguising, that I lost any respect for it.
Fool Me Once ... - Crowdstrike Claimed Two Cases
Of "Russian Hacking" - One Has Been Proven Wrong
The cyber-security company Crowdstrike claimed that the "Russia" hacked the Democratic National
Committee. It also claimed that "Russia" hacked artillery units of the Ukrainian army. The second
claim has now be found to be completely baseless. That same is probably the case with its claims
related to the DNC.
..........................
The DNC was likely not hacked at all. Some insider with access to its servers may have taken
the emails to publish them. On July 10 2016 the DNC IT administrator Sean Rich was found fatally
shot on the streets of Washington DC. To this day no culprit has been found. The crime is unsolved.
Five Congressional staffers and IT administrators from Pakistan, some of whom also worked for
the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, are under criminal investigation for unauthorized access
to Congressional computers. They had the password of Wasserman-Schultz and may have had access
to the DNC servers.
Crowdstrike's claims of "Russian hacking" have evidently been false with regards to the Ukrainian
artillery. Crowdstrike's claims of "Russian hacking" in the case of the DNC have never been supported
or confirmed by independent evidence. There are reasons to believe that the loss of control of
the DNC's email archives were a case of unauthorized internal access and not a "hack" at all.
A company related to a NATO aligned "think-tank", which is financed by weapon producers
and other special interests, raises allegations against Russia that are quite possibly unfounded.
These allegations are then used by NATO to build up a public boogeyman picture of "the Russian
enemy". In consequence the budgets for NATO militaries and the profits of weapon producers increase.
It is a simple racket, but with potentially very bad consequences for all of us.
"Devin Nunes is a conservative Republican from the San Joaquin Valley who
advised Donald Trump through his transition to the presidency. Adam Schiff is
a Los Angeles Democrat who campaigned for Hillary Clinton and isn't shy in his
criticisms of the man who defeated her" [
RealClearPolitics
].
Now the two California congressmen find themselves at the center of the political
universe, leading a House probe into Russian meddling in American politics .
The two have no qualms about expressing disagreements with what they deduce
from the same pot of information, but their joint appearances are a vestige
of the kind of bipartisanship that has all but disappeared from Washington.
And yet, Monday's hearing showed the partisan divide on the issue, with Republican
members focused on plugging government leaks of sensitive information and Democrats
interested in possible collusion." "Meddling," "collusion." Pretty squishy words
"Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [
Politico
].
(Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians were
hacking
tampering
with
meddling in
seeking to influence
our
election!
Where's that declaration of war I had lying around
"From Russia, with Panic" [Yasha Levine,
The Baffler
(DG)]. This is an important post. Key point: "But in private
conversations, as well as little-noticed public discussions, security professionals
take a dimmer view of the cybersecurity complex. And the more I've looked at
the hysteria surrounding Russia's supposed hacking of our elections, the more
I've come to see it as a case study of everything wrong and dangerous about
the cyber-attribution business." For example: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ analyst
and founder of Capital Alpha Security who blogs under the influential Twitter
handle @pwnallthethings, found a Word document pilfered from the DNC and leaked
by Guccifer 2.0. As he examined its data signatures, he discovered that it had
been edited by Felix Edmundovich-a.k.a. Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Cheka.
To him, it was proof that Guccifer 2.0 was part of the same Russian intelligence
operation. He really believed that the super sophisticated spy group trying
to hide its Russian ties would register its Microsoft Word processor in the
name of the leader of the infamously brutal Soviet security service."
"Could the President Spy on His Political Opponents?" [
The
American Conservative
]. "But regardless of whether [Trump's "wiretapping"]
claims turn out to be completely false, which is all but certain now, they do
raise a question that shouldn't be casually dismissed: Could President Obama's
administration have surveiled his political opponents under its interpretation
of the law? Could President Trump's administration now do the same? The answer,
unfortunately, is yes."
"Report: Paul Manafort Drafted a Plan in 2005 to Influence American Politics
for Putin's Benefit" [
Slate
].
I used Slate because "2005" somehow didn't get into the headlines in the other
stories. Here's
a blow-by-blow from NPR
.
I can well believe that the Democrats are so feckless that they ginned up
a Trump scandal with
the wrong foreign power
:
One thing we should
have learned over the past year or so is you can take any narrative being pushed by the
corporate media and Democrats, and
assume that the exact opposite is true
.
The current Trump-Russia hysteria could very well turn out to be the latest and most
embarrassing example of this phenomenon. In fact, well known Putin-critic, Masha Gessen,
recently warned in an interview with
Politico
that
her biggest fear is
a Trump-Putin conflict, not some imagined alliance.
Below I provide the excerpts from this lengthy interview which I believe are relevant
to the topic.
Glasser
: I want to talk a little bit about where we are right
now. And then back up to why it is, in your life, you've figured out this expecting
the unimaginable. But recently, you know, American politics has been consumed by
Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. And you wrote something that a lot of people
were surprised by the other day, although I was not. And you said, "Beware the
conspiracy trap."
And that, in fact, the Russia scandal that now threatens to engulf President
Trump's very new presidency, you wrote, "In effect, could be actually helping
President Trump and amount to a sort of a colossal distraction for us." What did you
mean by that?
Gessen
: Well, a couple things. One is that, if you look at,
you know, what we actually know about the Russia story, which changes every day, but
what-at this point, what we actually know suggests that the likelihood that there's
going to be a causal link between the Russian interference in the American election
and the outcome of the election. The likelihood that was a causal link, and that that
causal link can be shown, is basically vanishingly small, right?
So-and I think that part of the reason-there are basically two reasons that a
lot of journalists and a lot of activists have been focusing on Russia is because it
serves as a crutch for the imagination. And again, I'm coming back to this topic of
imagination, which obsesses me.
So one way in which it serves as a crutch for the imagination is that it
allows us to imagine that, maybe, Trump will be so sullied by this Russia scandal, by
this connection, even if he can't prove a cause-causal link, just that the darkness
of the scandal will be thick enough of a cloud that he will eventually be impeached
by a Republican Congress.
That's a huge leap. And it also, I think, doesn't take into account the
tools-the rhetorical tools that will have to be used to sully Trump in such a way,
right? Which are basically xenophobic and, you know, corrosive to the public sphere.
And the other way in which it serves as a crutch for the imagination is it also
serves to explain how Trump could have happened to us, right? The Russians did it.
Glasser
: That's exactly right; if it's an external thing. And
you wrote that very, very early on. Actually, before this latest round, that the real
threat to Trump would be to misunderstand where this comes from. And if it's not
Americans who voted for him, but somehow, it's a wily, dark conspiracy theory. That
leads you down a whole different set of responses to Trump.
Gessen
: Right. Which-
Glasser
: I think that's your point.
Gessen
: That is my point. And also that it's destructive to
politics. Politics is what happens out in the open. And there's lots of politics
happening, right? There's this endless barrage of frightening bills being filed at
this point. There are the Cabinet appointments. There's the, you know, dismantling of
the federal government as we have known it for generations.
All of that is going on out in the open. And we only have so much bandwidth.
If we're not talking about what's going on out in the open, if we're talking about
conspiracy instead, then we are, by doing that, destroying the politics that we
should be preserving, right? I mean, how do we emerge out the other end, when Trump
ends, and Trump will eventually end. Everything ends, right?
If we've engaged in conspiracy theorizing this whole time, instead of engaging
in politics-and only by engaging in politics can we actually preserve the political
space
Gessen
: I'm worried about Russia. I'm-this is-I mean, we're
already out of the honeymoon phase, and it's been less than two months. And I think
it's-I mean, the danger of having these two unhinged power-hungry men at
their-respective nuclear buttons cannot be overestimated. But-
Glasser
: So you would see them as potential enemies as much
as potential friends? That this scenario-
Gessen
: Oh, absolutely.
Glasser
: -we should worry about is Trump versus Putin, not
just Trump and Putin uniting?
Gessen
: Right. I'm actually worried about a collision with
them.
She's exactly right. I completely agree that the disaster scenario with Putin and Trump
is if and when they actually clash. Once that happens, the corporate media and Democrats
will pretend they had nothing to do with it, as they always do. As Mark Ames noted on
Twitter:
All the worst Iraq war liars still have their fat media
jobs-where they now tell us public distrust in Establishment is a Kremlin conspiracy
Moving on, I want to once again turn to Robert Parry of
Consortium News
to
highlight just how ridiculous the whole "Putin bought off Trump aides" conspiracy is.
From yesterday's piece,
The
Missing Logic of Russia-gate
:
Democrats circulated a report showing that retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who
served briefly as President Donald Trump's national security adviser, had received
payments from several Russia-related entities, totaling nearly $68,000.
The largest payment of $45,386 came for a speech and an appearance in Moscow
in 2015 at the tenth anniversary dinner for RT, the international Russian TV network,
with Flynn netting $33,750 after his speakers' bureau took its cut. Democrats treated
this revelation as important evidence about Russia buying influence in the Trump
campaign and White House. But the actual evidence suggests something quite different.
Not only was the sum a relative trifle for a former senior U.S. government
official compared to, say, the fees collected by Bill and Hillary Clinton, who often
pulled in six to ten times more, especially for speeches to foreign audiences. (
Former
President Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment
bank with ties to the Kremlin, The New York Times
reported
in
2015,)
Yet, besides Flynn's relatively modest speaking fee, The Washington Post
reported
that
RT negotiated Flynn's rate downward.
Deep inside its article on Flynn's Russia-connected payments, the Post wrote,
"RT balked at paying Flynn's original asking price. 'Sorry it took us longer to get
back to you but the problem is that the speaking fee is a bit too high and exceeds
our budget at the moment,' Alina Mikhaleva, RT's head of marketing, wrote a Flynn
associate about a month before the event."
So, if you accept the Democrats' narrative that Russian President
Vladimir Putin is engaged in an all-out splurge to induce influential Americans to
betray their country, how do you explain that his supposed flunkies at RT are
quibbling with Flynn over a relatively modest speaking fee?
Of course, you'll never hear any of this emphasized in the corporate media, they're
too busy pushing for a conflict between the U.S. and Russia.
A conflict that
once it happens, they will vehemently deny playing any role in propagating.
"... 'Former intelligence analyst Larry Johnson, who has long attacked the U.S. intel community, is standing by his allegation that triggered a feud with America's closest ally' ..."
"How the U.K. spying claim traveled from an ex-CIA blogger to Trump's White House"
'Former intelligence analyst Larry Johnson, who has long attacked the U.S. intel community, is standing by his allegation that
triggered a feud with America's closest ally'
By Matthew Nussbaum...03/18/17...02:38 PM EDT
"...Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and blogger, acknowledges he was one of the sources for Fox News commentator Andrew
Napolitano's claim - later repeated by the White House..."
The Deep State/MSM trots out shit like this
precisely because the facts don't matter once the
narrative is set. Half the country will go on
thinking there's no way the story would have made it
this far were there not some there there.
I have wondered if some of the strategy is
to keep him on the run, on the defensive, so
that if he does go after some of the elite who
need to go down for their crimes, that it will
be framed as a dictator abusing his power,
engaged in partisan politics.
I wonder
if he can go after them at all without looking
like Mussolini?
Guys like Schiff, Schumer, and Blitzer will
say that but they hate Trump no matter
what.
Trump's deplorable supporters know
the score and will criticize if he doesn't
go after them hard and now is a perfect
opportunity. It was the Dummycrats who
demanded this investigation but want the
scope restricted to Russia, and Russia
only. And the rEpublicans won't bring this
up either because they suck too.
The first rule of Swamp Club is you
DO NOT talk about Anthony Weiner's laptop.
"Guys like Schiff, Schumer, and Blitzer will say that
but they hate Trump no matter what."
This whole "jew media hates Trump" meme is starting to put
off a foul stench. For one thing Trump has yet to do anything
to stop this war for greater Israel. Or take this latest
leak/Russian collusion news. After months of bluster, its a
nothing burger. Is Trump really made of that much teflon, or
is this all a show for the goyim and all the ignorant jews.
Just keep on scrolling. It really is starting to look like
Trump is a crypto jew:
Baseless accusations to try and draw attention away from what the Dems
actually DID, with evidence and all.
Libtards wreck everything they
touch, even the hard work of theorists who until recently achieved an
amazing level of success in converting conspiracys into fact.
<- They'll cling to the comfort of their illusions ->
Isn't
delusions
a better word choice?
There's a part of me that wants the tide to change quickly, for the intel
and deep state apparatus pendulum to swing back the other way.
This slow motion train wreck is wreaking havoc on my libertarian
leanings. I keep hoping against hope for a dramatic event like indictments
and perp walks.
The best outcome would be the elimination of the many 3 letter agencies
that have become pygmalian.
Most reasonable people are sickened by this entire shit show, feel they
have no say, nor control. As always it is mostly a partisan echo chamber,
while the real events take on a life of their own. The great many, the
unwashed masses are merely riding on the crazy train, and the reality is
could give two shits. Other than that, another percentage spits back up
what they are told on the tee vee .
Yes, this paints a bleak picture,
but there you have it.
Sure its been goin on forever. Partisan head games, lying,
spying, stealing, cheating, theft, deep state parlor tricks,
hat tricks, etc. all that .. I didn't say the game nor human
beings were / was invented yesterday, and of course you're
spot on about glimpsing past the curtain, thank you interwebs.
I am merely saying, the depth of of problem, the extent, is
becoming increasingly "larger" by degrees of magnitude, as
will the eventual blow off top in my opinion, and also the
blowback, I would imagine ..
Obviously I could be
completely wrong on this and things will just swim along such
as they are, forever ..
That IS what they say about Trump voters you know
....
Watched more media this am,
Trump kicked their ass into a puddle with
this Obama wiretapping charge. Totally bitch slapped them. Now he's made
Merkel & the EU & G20 look stupid along with the media.
if it comes to it, former President Obama should be in jail... probably
has too mucn plausible deniability to shield him, but where there's smoke
there's fire
if I were Trump D.C. would be undergoing a serious witch hunt as we
speak... the people who did this need to do time and the lying lapdog
'media' needs to be sanctioned
We start a war with Russia, we'll all be on the "front line". The
retarded snowflakes don't even know that they are supporting this effort
to start a war with Russia.
...and the liberal snowflakes and their puppets in the "news" media will run
from this story like a vampire from garlic. Anything that proves them wrong or
might in any way bolster Trump is bad medicine for them...
"... Britain is one of the so-called "Five Eyes," a group of five English-speaking countries including the United States, which engage in close and intensive collaboration and intelligence sharing. Even within that context the United States and Britain have an unusually tight relationship. In the words of Stephen Lander, a former head of Britain's MI5, relations are so close that "consumers [of intelligence] in both capitals seldom know which country generated either the access or the product itself." ..."
"... Some people writing on intelligence and surveillance note that close working relations like this can allow intelligence agencies to evade domestic controls. ..."
"... The Five Eyes collaboration appears to extend the NSA's surveillance capabilities, giving the agency a way to spy on Americans without technically breaking US laws that would otherwise prohibit such spying. Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national intelligence organization that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries." In other words, if US law doesn't protect the privacy rights of British citizens, and British laws don't protect the rights of Americans, then they can just spy on us, we'll spy on them, and our intelligence agencies will just swap information. This evasion of domestic privacy laws would enable essentially unlimited spying unaffected by either collection or usage rules. ..."
"... President Trump is already engaged in an unprecedented battle with large segments of his own intelligence community. Spicer's statement internationalizes the dispute. ..."
Really? This WH is unhinged from all known and verifiable reality and a clear and present danger to our national security, peace,
and prospertiy, imo, of course
"Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"
"Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"
By *Henry Farrell...March 16, 2017...7:12 PM
"In his daily press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer just repeated a claim that President Barack Obama had
used British spies to surveil President Trump. After laying out a number of different media sources which Spicer suggested supported
President Trump's contentions that he was wiretapped, he concluded:
Last, on Fox News on March 14th, Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement – quote – Three intelligence sources
have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he
didn't use the FBI, and he didn't use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What is that? It's the initials for the British
intelligence spying agency. So simply by having two people saying to them the president needs transcripts of conversations involving
candidate Trump's conversations, involving President-elect Trump, he's able to get it and there's no American fingerprints on
this. Putting the published accounts and common sense together, this leads to a lot.
This is an explosive accusation.
What's GCHQ?
GCHQ - Government Communications Headquarters - is Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency. Like the NSA, it engages
in extensive international surveillance. It furthermore has a close relationship with the United States. Britain is one of
the so-called "Five Eyes," a group of five English-speaking countries including the United States, which engage in close and intensive
collaboration and intelligence sharing. Even within that context the United States and Britain have an unusually tight relationship.
In the words of Stephen Lander, a former head of Britain's MI5, relations are so close that "consumers [of intelligence] in both
capitals seldom know which country generated either the access or the product itself."
Close collaboration can lead to temptation
Some people writing on intelligence and surveillance note that close working relations like this can allow intelligence
agencies to evade domestic controls. Jennifer Granick, in her new Cambridge University Press book, American Spies: Modern
Surveillance, Why You Should Care, and What To Do About It, notes that Five Eyes countries aren't supposed to spy on each other's
citizens. However, she says that the NSA has prepared policies that would allow it to spy on Five Eyes citizens without permission.
She furthermore suggests that:
The Five Eyes collaboration appears to extend the NSA's surveillance capabilities, giving the agency a way to spy on Americans
without technically breaking US laws that would otherwise prohibit such spying. Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national
intelligence organization that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries." In other words, if US law doesn't protect the
privacy rights of British citizens, and British laws don't protect the rights of Americans, then they can just spy on us, we'll
spy on them, and our intelligence agencies will just swap information. This evasion of domestic privacy laws would enable essentially
unlimited spying unaffected by either collection or usage rules.
Granick notes that if there are rules that would protect Americans from Five Eyes spying, or about the ways that the NSA, FBI
or CIA could use information from foreign partners, we haven't seen them.
But don't jump to conclusions
Granick's arguments point to some important potential problems in close spying relationships. If there are rules to prevent
the abuses that she fears, we don't know what they are. However, her concerns are with surveillance of ordinary citizens. It is
wildly unlikely that U.S. and British intelligence agencies would secretly collaborate to monitor a U.S. presidential candidate.
The political risks to both sides would be quite enormous. While critics like Granick and Snowden worry that intelligence agencies
have too much unchecked power, they happily acknowledge that most members of the intelligence community are motivated by a sincere
concern for American well-being. If the United States was really using foreign intelligence as a cut-out to spy illegally on the
Republican candidate for president, all it would take would be one sincere objector or one worried conservative to create a scandal
that would dwarf Watergate. Nor would British intelligence have any obvious motivation to collaborate in such an arrangement.
The British government knows that it will have to deal with both Democratic and Republican administrations, and would have no
appetite for an intrigue which would have little obvious benefit to Britain, but which could cripple the U.S.-British relationship
for decades.
Nor is there any actual proof
Judge Napolitano, a Fox News television personality, does not seem to have good evidence for these extraordinary claims. As
he describes it on his own website:
Sources have told Fox News that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known
as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump's calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers,
so GCHQ - a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms - has the digital versions
of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's. So by bypassing all American intelligence services,
Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints.
This statement is notable both for being strategically vague and for not understanding what the NSA does. Spicer quotes a strong
claim by Napolitano on Fox News that Obama "went outside the chain of command" and "used GCHQ." Napolitano is much more cautious
in the print version, where he claims that unnamed intelligence sources said that GCHQ "most likely" provided transcripts. That's
not a claim as to fact, made by someone who claims to have seen the transcripts or had first-hand knowledge of the relationship.
It is a (in my opinion highly dubious) suggestion as to plausibility, made by someone who does not claim to have direct knowledge
of what happened.
Furthermore, Napolitano doesn't seem to have any very strong understanding of the actual controversies between the defenders
and critics of modern surveillance law. For example, Napolitano seems to believe that GCHQ is able to generate transcripts because
it has "full access" to NSA computers, which in turn " has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America
in 2016, including Trump's." In fact, if the GCHQ were looking for data on American communications, it would be far better advised
to look to its own resources than to the NSA. While critics argue that the NSA collects too much 'incidental' data and metadata
on Americans, they do not claim that the NSA has "the digital versions" (whatever that means) of all American communications,
or anything like it. Napolitano is not a sound source for explosive political claims.
This statement will hurt intelligence cooperation
President Trump is already engaged in an unprecedented battle with large segments of his own intelligence community. Spicer's
statement internationalizes the dispute. U.S. intelligence partners - in the Five Eyes and elsewhere - are already nervous
about sharing sensitive intelligence with the Trump administration, since they do not know how it will be used or who it will
be shared with. This accusation will greatly exacerbate these fears, suggesting that the Trump administration does not prioritize
continued close collaboration with its intelligence partners. Both critics and defenders of cross-national intelligence collaboration
agree that there has been an extraordinarily high level of trust among a few select intelligence agencies since World War II.
The "Five Eyes" was a club that other states clamored to get into (during the Snowden controversy, Germany tried to use revelations
about U.S. spying as a lever to open the door to German participation in the Five Eyes). Now club members have much less reason
to trust each other and membership looks substantially less attractive."
*Henry Farrell is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
He works on a variety of topics, including trust, the politics of the Internet and international and comparative political economy.
== quote ==
The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence
agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality.
It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's
links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe.
Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the
mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile.
Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his
connections to Russia.
Britain Livid on Spying Claim, but Trump Isn't Apologizing. White House aides scrambled to deal with an unusual rupture after
suggesting that former President Barack Obama used a British spy agency to wiretap Donald J. Trump during the campaign.
At a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Trump made clear that he felt the White House had nothing to
retract.
WASHINGTON - President Trump provoked a rare public dispute with America's closest ally on Friday after his White House
aired an explosive and unsubstantiated claim that Britain's spy agency had secretly eavesdropped on him at the behest of President
Barack Obama during last year's campaign.
Livid British officials adamantly denied the allegation and secured promises from senior White House officials never to
repeat it. But a defiant Mr. Trump refused to back down, making clear that the White House had nothing to retract or apologize
for because his spokesman had simply repeated an assertion made by a Fox News commentator. Fox itself later disavowed the report.
...
this equally applied to those with the virulent fixation on Russia completely out of control.
== end of quote ==
Neoliberal DemoRats might pay dearly for this "poisoning of the well" trick -- McCarthyism witch hunt.
We need to remember that corruption of politician is sine qua non of neoliberalism. "Greed is good" completely replaced 10
Commandments.
But the first rule of living in a glass house that modern Internet provides (in cooperation with intelligence agencies, Google,
Microsoft and Facebook) is not to throw stones.
Russia is not Serra Leon with rockets. I am afraid that Russia might have a lot of info about corruption of major Democratic
politicians as most of them took bribes from Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs (whom they essentially created) and some (old Clinton
"associates" like Summers) closely participated in "great economic rape of Russia" of 1991-2000. All neatly recorded and waiting
their hour for release.
At some point Putin's nerves might break and he can order to release this information. Then what ?
"... Merkel's reaction was similarly amusing: almost as if she had heard for the first time that in 2010, and for years onward, Barack Obama had been wiretapping her and countless other heads of state. ..."
"... For those unsure what the exchange was about, we suggest you read the Telegraph's " Barack Obama 'approved tapping Angela Merkel's phone 3 years ago'... President Barack Obama was told about monitoring of German Chancellor in 2010 and allowed it to continue, says German newspaper ." ..."
"... And incidentally, in yet another change in the official narrative, after both Sky News and the Telegraph reported earlier today that the White House had apologized to Britain over the accusation that its spy agency had helped Obama spy on Trump, the NYT reported that the White House has said there was no apology from either Spicer or McMaster, and that instead the Administration defended Spicer's mention of the wiretapping story. ..."
"... Finally, as Axios adds , after Trump and Merkel left the stage reporters again asked Sean Spicer whether he apologized for repeating an anonymously sourced Fox News claim that British intelligence helped in wiretapping Trump Tower. His response: " I don't think we regret anything. " ..."
Following today's latest developments over Trump's allegations that the UK's GCHQ may or may not have helped Obama to wiretap the
Trump Tower, an allegation which the infuriated British Spy Agency called "utterly ridiculous" and
prompted it to demand an apology from the White House, a German reporter asked Trump for his current opinion on whether Obama
had indeed wiretapped Trump. The president's response: he gestured to Angela Merkel and said " on wiretapping by this past administration,
at least we have something in common."
Merkel's reaction was similarly amusing: almost as if she had heard for the first time that in 2010, and for years onward, Barack
Obama had been wiretapping her and countless other heads of state.
And incidentally, in yet another change in the official narrative, after both Sky News and the Telegraph reported earlier today
that the White House had apologized to Britain over the accusation that its spy agency had helped Obama spy on Trump, the NYT reported
that the White House has said there was no apology from either Spicer or McMaster, and that instead the Administration defended Spicer's
mention of the wiretapping story.
WH now sez there was no apology to Brits from @PressSec /McMaster;
they fielded complaints & defended Spicer's mention of wiretapping story
Finally, as
Axios
adds , after Trump and Merkel left the stage reporters again asked Sean Spicer whether he apologized for repeating an anonymously
sourced Fox News claim that British intelligence helped in wiretapping Trump Tower. His response: " I don't think we regret anything.
"
"... From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party's base since Trump's victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election - a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented. ..."
"... The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected ..."
"... now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed. ..."
Is sanity finally returning? After weeks of ranting and raving about Russian "interference" and
Putin-Trump conspiracies, so-called 'intelligence' agencies and high-ranking Democrats are quietly
walking back their rhetoric and managing their base's expectations - simply put: there's no 'there',
there .
If we engage in Times-style gilding of every lily the leakers throw our way, and in doing so build
up a fever of expectations for a bombshell reveal, but there turns out to be no conspiracy – Trump
will be pre-inoculated against all criticism for the foreseeable future.
From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the
Democratic Party's base since Trump's victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other
issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless
it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate
the outcome of the U.S. election - a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented.
The principal problem for Democrats is that so
many media figures and
online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free
conspiracies - just as
right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there
are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which,
at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard
as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.
"... It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld. ..."
"... For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out. ..."
"... The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. ..."
"... The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source" as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election. ..."
"... We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program. ..."
George Neumayr
Posted on 3/6/2017 4:42:04 PM by RoosterRedux
It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's
gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about
the government investigation of Trumpworld.
For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under
investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out.
Why does the latter merit condemnation but not the former?
Notice what is happening here: The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. Where
did the liberal BBC's story (building on a story first reported by Heat Street) on intelligence agencies receiving a FISA court
warrant to investigate Russian-Trumpworld ties come from? It came from a "senior member of the US intelligence community":
On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me
by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He
would never volunteer anything – giving up classified information would be illegal – but he would confirm or deny what I had
heard from other sources.
Notice on the Sunday talk shows that Obama's CIA director John Brennan did not appear. Yet he served as the genesis of this investigation,
according to the BBC story:
The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source"
as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election.
Can't wait to see the application paperwork for the requested FISA orders!!
To: RoosterRedux Don't want to start a separate thread for this and it is somewhat related.
Listening to Hannity show today and William Binney was on and interviewed. Binney was a US Intelligence Official with the NSA
who resigned in 2001 and turned whistleblower.
I am paraphrasing but - He says phone, email, test, surveillance is routinely done on everyone with no warrant. He said they
can go back for years and pull out the data.
Please listen to Hannity at the top of the 3rd hour for details.
We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program.
Vault 7 revelations now shed some light on the possibilities of a muti-step operations to get the court order. The absurdity of
the situation is evident: acting POTUS complains about wiretapping by his predecessor who supposedly used one of intelligence agencies
(supposedly CIA) for this operation. Being now a Commander in Chief.
Ray McGovern who probably knows what he is talking about suggested that Obama might be scared of CIA Director Brennan (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGayl9uNW4A actually this
is a very interesting interview)
The following scheme looks plausible: Scapegoat Russians by hacking into DNC servers; create media hysteria about Russians; implicate
Trump in connections to Russians; get court order for wiretapping on this ground
Notable quotes:
"... Just hours before he publicly responded last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee report accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of torture and deceit, John O. Brennan, the CIA's director, stopped by the White House to meet with President Obama. Ostensibly, he was there for an intelligence briefing. But the messages delivered later that day by the White House and Mr. Brennan were synchronized, even down to similar wording, and the larger import of the well-timed visit was hardly a classified secret: After six years of partnership, the president was standing by the embattled spy chief even as fellow Democrats called for his resignation. ..."
"... I'm not tarring Obama with Brennan's war crimes and that of the Agency, copiously documented in the Senate Report on Torture, and instead am suggesting an active partnership-in-war-crimes, Obama, if anything, giving CIA its head of steam under his watch ..."
"... Obama plucked Brennan to lead the intelligence charge through the interstices of government and military culminating in a permanent war economy and psychosis of vision. ..."
"... in the 67 years since the CIA was founded, few presidents have had as close a bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan. It is a relationship that has shaped the policy and politics of the debate over the nation's war with terrorist organizations, as well as the agency's own struggle to balance security and liberty ..."
Baker-Mazzetti's opener says it all: " Just hours before he publicly responded last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee
report accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of torture and deceit, John O. Brennan, the CIA's director, stopped by the White
House to meet with President Obama. Ostensibly, he was there for an intelligence briefing. But the messages delivered later that
day by the White House and Mr. Brennan were synchronized, even down to similar wording, and the larger import of the well-timed
visit was hardly a classified secret: After six years of partnership, the president was standing by the embattled spy chief even
as fellow Democrats called for his resignation. " Nothing could be plainer. As one who remembers well the guilt-by-association
days of McCarthyism, I'm not tarring Obama with Brennan's war crimes and that of the Agency, copiously documented in the Senate
Report on Torture, and instead am suggesting an active partnership-in-war-crimes, Obama, if anything, giving CIA its head of steam
under his watch , as in its role in drone assassination at facilities in Pakistan, Brennan himself installed as Director
after Valiant Service as national security adviser, all despite questions of favoring waterboarding raised in confirmation hearings.
From a pool of gung-ho national-security experts on which to draw, the others still making up his First Team of advisers (include
generals, admirals, members of think tanks with partly disguised neocon credentials), Obama plucked Brennan to lead the intelligence
charge through the interstices of government and military culminating in a permanent war economy and psychosis of vision.
Obama is not Brennan's puppet, nor the other way. Both are electrified by mutual contact and support. The reporters note friction
between the White House and Langley "after the release of the scorching report," Brennan having "irritated advisers by battling
Democrats on the committee over the report during the past year." They do not point out Obama did the same, stalling release,
suffocating criticism of CIA hard-ball tactics against the committee, of which later; yet they make up for that with, given that
this is NYT, an astonishing statement: "But in the 67 years since the CIA was founded, few presidents have had as close a
bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan. It is a relationship that has shaped the policy
and politics of the debate over the nation's war with terrorist organizations, as well as the agency's own struggle to balance
security and liberty ."
What they don't say is that counterterrorism is part of the larger US position of counterrevolution, issuing in confrontations
with Russia and China and regime change wherever American interests are challenged. Nor do they say, the Agency's struggle to
balance security and liberty was lost before it had fairly begun, assassination and regime change hardly indicative of liberty,
a no-contest battle.
"... In the West, it's now common for politicians to shout Russian "fake news" when embarrassing facts come out - as happened with Canada's new foreign minister hiding a Nazi family skeleton. ..."
"... Over the next week, the article entitled "A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet" by journalist Arina Tsukanova (which I personally edited and fact-checked) circulated enough that Freeland was asked about it by the Canadian news media. As often happens these days, Freeland chose not to tell the truth but rather portrayed the article as part of a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign. ..."
In the West, it's now common for politicians to shout Russian "fake news" when embarrassing facts
come out - as happened with Canada's new foreign minister hiding a Nazi family skeleton.
By Robert Parry
On Feb, 27, Consortiumnews.com published an article * describing misrepresentations by Canada's
new Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland about her Ukrainian maternal grandfather whom she has portrayed
as a hero who struggled "to return freedom and democracy to Ukraine" but left out that he was a Nazi
propagandist whose newspaper justified the slaughter of Jews.
Over the next week, the article entitled "A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet" by journalist
Arina Tsukanova (which I personally edited and fact-checked) circulated enough that Freeland was
asked about it by the Canadian news media. As often happens these days, Freeland chose not to tell
the truth but rather portrayed the article as part of a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign.
Freeland told reporters, "I don't think it's a secret. American officials have publicly said,
and even [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel has publicly said, that there were efforts on the Russian
side to destabilize Western democracies, and I think it shouldn't come as a surprise if these same
efforts were used against Canada. I think that Canadians and indeed other Western countries should
be prepared for similar efforts to be directed at them."
Though Freeland did not comment directly on the truthfulness of our article, her office denied
that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator.
Other leaders of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government joined in the counterattack. Citing
the danger of Russian disinformation, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, said, "The situation
is obviously one where we need to be alert."
In an article on March 6, Canada's Globe and Mail also rallied to Freeland's defense claiming
that she was "being targeted by allegations in pro-Moscow websites that her maternal Ukrainian grandfather
was a Nazi collaborator."
The newspaper also reached out to other experts to add their denunciations of Consortiumnews.com
and other news sites that either reposted our story or ran a similar one.
"It is the continued Russian modus operandi that they have. Fake news, disinformation and targeting
different individuals," said Paul Grod, president of the Canadian Ukrainian Congress. "It is just
so outlandish when you hear some of these allegations – whether they are directed at minister Freeland
or others."
The Globe and Mail also quoted Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, Andriy Shevchenko, citing our supposedly
fake news as "another reason we should realize that Russia is waging a war against the free world.
It is not just about Ukraine."
The ambassador then offered some advice about standing up to the Russians and their disinformationists:
"I am absolutely sure they will seek new targets in the free world so I would encourage our Canadian
friends to be prepared for that, to stay strong and we will be happy to share our experience in how
to deal with all these information wars."
A Second-Day Story
The only problem with all these righteous condemnations was that the information about Freeland's
grandfather was true – and Freeland knew that it was true.
In a second-day story, The Globe and Mail had to revisit the issue, reporting that "Freeland knew
for more than two decades that her maternal Ukrainian grandfather was the chief editor of a Nazi
newspaper in occupied Poland that vilified Jews during the Second World War."
In other words, not only was our story accurate but Freeland knowingly launched a deceptive attack
on us and other news outlets to punish us for writing the truth.
And not only was our story correct but it was newsworthy, given Freeland's fierce support for
Ukrainian nationalism and her deep hatred of Russia. Canadians have a right to know what drives those
passions in their Foreign Minister. In this case, her worldview derived from her grandparents who
sided with Adolf Hitler and who fled to the West as the Soviet Red Army defeated the Nazis.
Yet, instead of fessing up and acknowledging these facts, Freeland chose to dissemble and slander
journalists who were doing their job. And the smears didn't entirely stop.
Even as the Globe and Mail admitted the reality about Freeland's grandfather, it continued to
disparage the journalists who had exposed the facts. The second line of the newspaper's second-day
article read: "Ms. Freeland's family history has become a target for Russian forces seeking to discredit
one of Canada's highly placed defenders of Ukraine." ...
Freeland knew her grandfather was editor of Nazi newspaper
Stories published in pro-Russian websites have said Ms.
Freeland's strong stand against Russian aggression in Ukraine
is linked to her grandfather's past.
East Ukraine [Russians therein] have as much right to
independence as Turks left behind in Kosovo.
When the Red
Army sets up a permanent [Camp Bonesteel] armed presence to
assure the minority are safe it might look a tiny fraction
like of the crimes of the US/NATO.
Early in the "occupation" of Ukraine Hitler turned down
the non Aryan volunteers, by D Day they were killing
Americans in Normandy.
In the case of Russian news I err on the side they are
correct compared to the NYT which tells every who could be
conned they "tell the neoliberal truth".
Imagine such a Democratic opinion maker having absorbed and
been overtaken by Cold War thinking, unable to be
self-reflective enough to understand the disdain of a people
that is being fostered, how damaging this can be, evidently
wishing a return to the fearful 1950s.
That such a
Democratic opinion maker has come to use the language of the
1950s to instill disdain for a people and spread fear in
those who would question or dissent from the prejudice
continues to be shocking and dismaying.
Judging from comments totally brainwashed part of American electorate conditioned to believe into
"Boris and Natasha" stories and unconditionally support DemoRats (not understanding that they are
just soft neoliberals and also want to redistribute wealth up, away from ordinary shmucks) is very comfortable
being out sync with reality. Middle age starting to replay in the USA. Right here, right now. see
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/01/heres-the-problem-with-the-story-connecting-russia-to-donald-trumps-email-server/
Also from the same thread: "RUSSIA!!!!!. Look guys, RUSSIA! The
Obama administration repeatedly broke federal laws, lied about breaking
those laws, got caught lying about breaking those laws (thank you
"whistle blowers") then said it stopped breaking said laws. Then
it got caught lying about saying it stopped breaking laws. "
"... At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and CNN sexed up the transcript. ..."
"... Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous: ..."
"... Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out. ..."
"... Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it. ..."
"... In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on. ..."
"Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media" [Matt Taibbi,
Rolling Stone ]. Well worth a read. "There is a lot of smoke in the Russia story . Moreover,
the case that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee now appears fairly solid.
Even Donald Trump thinks so ."
At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John
Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and
CNN sexed up the transcript.
Here's the CNN quote: "'I think it was Russia, [1] but I think we also get hacked
by other countries and other people. ' Trump said. Putin '[2]should not be doing it. He
won't be doing it. Russia will have much greater respect for our country when I am leading it
than when other people have led it.'"
From the full transcript , [1] shows what CNN deleted, and [2] comes 45 minutes later, in
response to a very qualified question. Trump doesn't do nuance well, but I think he was trying
to do it here.
Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous:
[T]he manner in which these stories are being reported is becoming a story in its own right.
Russia has become an obsession, cultural shorthand for a vast range of suspicions about Donald
Trump.
The notion that the president is either an agent or a useful idiot of the Russian state
is so freely accepted in some quarters that Beck Bennett's shirtless representation of Putin
palling with Alec Baldwin's Trump is already a no-questions-asked yuks routine for the urban
smart set .
We can't afford to bolster [Trump's] accusations of establishment bias and overreach by
using the techniques of conspiracy theorists to push this Russia story. Unfortunately, that
is happening.
One could list the more ridiculous examples, like the Washington Post's infamous "PropOrNot"
story identifying hundreds of alternative media sites as fellow travellers aiding Russia, or
the Post's faceplant over a report about a hacked utility in Vermont.
Setting all of that aside, look at the techniques involved within the more "legitimate"
reports. Many are framed in terms of what they might mean, should other information surface.
There are inevitably uses of phrases like "so far," "to date" and "as yet." These make visible
the outline of a future story that isn't currently reportable, further heightening expectations.
Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats
like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly
refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out.
Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks
don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive.
They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it.
In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation,
or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and
after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just
told us – they didn't have evidence to go on.
Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that
normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance
in the media. What does this mean?
How fast the loser become take
the role of the enemies.
Russian effect is tiny compared to CIA Vickie Nuland color coup
in Kyiv, sodomizing Qaddafi, greenlighting the military coup in Egypt, busting up Iraq, Yemen,
Syria and Afghanistan.......
There is nothing more than a politicized 'thought experiment' on how the Russians could in
their alter reality have kept the career criminal from taking Pa and Wi.
Their press even rolls out dead journalists against Putin while the 65 dead around the Clinton
crime family is 'tin foil hat....'
"... He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated" anti-neoliberal sentiments. ..."
"... And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals: ..."
"... Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism ..."
"... Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization itself. ..."
"... "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," ..."
"... This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980. So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at ..."
The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president. What would motivate
many people to go out for weekend rallies now?
libezkova -> cm... , -1
"The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president."
You are absolutely wrong. Mission is not accomplished. It is not even started.
Trump IMHO was just a symbol of resistance against neoliberalism that is growing in the USA.
He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal
movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis
of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated"
anti-neoliberal sentiments.
And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals:
Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve
détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and
hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism
(despite
being neoliberal country with neoliberal President -- Putin is probably somewhat similar to Trump
"bastard neoliberal" a strange mixture of neoliberal in domestic politics with "economic nationalist"
on international arena that rejects neoliberal globalization, on term favorable to multinational
corporations).
Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on
Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization
itself.
The problem is there is extremely powerful and influential "fifth column" of globalization
within the country and they can't allow Trump to go this path. As Senator Dick Durbin said about
banks and the US Congress
== quote ==
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been battling the banks the last few weeks in an effort to
get 60 votes lined up for bankruptcy reform. He's losing.
On Monday night in an interview with a radio host back home, he came to a stark conclusion:
the banks own the Senate.
"And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many
of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly
own the place,"
== end of the quote ==
This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980.
So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to
return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at
"... Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security. ..."
"... Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually is. ..."
"... If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity. ..."
"... There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today. ..."
The dems are like fishermen, baiting the water (and viewership) and then setting the hook to
try to land the fish. They are following the old DC approach of pursuing one hot topic if there
is any potential for a catch.
The reps did that with the e-mails during the campaign and it paid off for them. They landed
the Hillary carp and found that it rotted from the head anyway.
The dems will see what type of fish, or old tire, or whatever, they land.
The Old Man and The Sea it ain't.
Those three neocon stooges wrote a really interesting piece. I would say this can qualify as
a classic anti-Russian propaganda. All major anti-Russian myths are present.
But in the sea of standard propaganda drivel and anti-Russian myths there are a couple of interesting
admissions (it is difficult to lie all the time ;-)
Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, frequently points to this history.
He sees a straight line from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color revolutions," in Georgia,
Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of the
uprisings of the Arab Spring.
Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests
in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave
the signal," Putin said.
"They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, began active work." (No
evidence was provided for the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and civil-society
groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and
the election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised instruments of regime change.
... .. ...
Initially, members of the Russian élite celebrated Clinton's disappearance from the scene,
and the new drift toward an America First populism that would leave Russia alone. The fall of
Michael Flynn and the prospect of congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm.
Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that
Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies,
might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."
In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has the political latitude to end sanctions
against Moscow and accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the shifting mood
in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage
of the new President.
... ... ...
*An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded
Russian political parties.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....
Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion
in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the
wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security.
"Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating
defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military
field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any
ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually
is."
I like the OMB historical tables that reflects outlay/ordering authority that is the checking
account to obligate money which might not show up in GDP expenditures for delivery for years.
Tracking GDP metric is limited in perspective, it shows what was delivered and paid for in
the accounting year. It does not show what is on the order books nor what new stuff is added to
the order books.
If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined
to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity.
There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today.
Why I am not sure measuring GDP impact without getting some account information on backlog
procurements means much for any country.
The illusion of DNC hack, allegation it is "the Russians
are coming:".
There is not there there!
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 05:33 AM
Game Warden said in reply to ilsm...
The dems are like fishermen, baiting the water (and
viewership) and then setting the hook to try to land the
fish. They are following the old DC approach of pursuing one
hot topic if there is any potential for a catch.
The reps did that with the e-mails during the campaign and it
paid off for them. They landed the Hillary carp and found
that it rotted from the head anyway.
The dems will see what type of fish, or old tire, or
whatever, they land.
The Old Man and The Sea it ain't.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 05:57 AM
ilsm said in reply to Game Warden...
Oh well Clinton was never good with files.
My resident
Hillary lover foresaw this week's Sessions version of 'the
Russians are coming' two weeks ago.
They should keep the operational schedule for the coup
closer.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 06:04 AM
libezkova said in reply to ilsm...
Those three neocon stooges wrote a really interesting piece.
I would say this can qualify as a classic anti-Russian
propaganda. All major anti-Russian myths are present.
But in the sea of standard propaganda drivel and
anti-Russian myths there are a couple of interesting
admissions (it is difficult to lie all the time ;-)
== quote ==
Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy,
frequently points to this history. He sees a straight line
from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color
revolutions," in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which
deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of
the uprisings of the Arab Spring.
Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests in Moscow's Bolotnaya
Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the
country and gave the signal," Putin said.
"They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State
Department, began active work." (No evidence was provided for
the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and
civil-society groups like the National Endowment for
Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the
election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised
instruments of regime change.
... .. ...
Initially, members of the Russian élite celebrated
Clinton's disappearance from the scene, and the new drift
toward an America First populism that would leave Russia
alone. The fall of Michael Flynn and the prospect of
congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm.
Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading
foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing
pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and
the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more
"ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."
In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has
the political latitude to end sanctions against Moscow and
accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the
shifting mood in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian
television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage of
the new President.
... ... ...
*An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that
the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties.
== and of quote ==
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion
and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan
and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as
governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by
replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the
infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare
to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially
of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the
costs by surveying the major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent,
or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in
current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan
and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year
2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65
billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense
and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year,
2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested
for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and
estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those
are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches
$4.79 trillion....
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 12:45 PM
anne said in reply to anne...
Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is
asking for another $54 billion in 2017, while between 2001
and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost
of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on
Homeland Security.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:00 PM
Peter K. said in reply to anne...
"Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of
always but always understating defense spending by playing
all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on
military field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to
talking about real or surreal spending so that any ordinary
person is made to think spending is tens of billions of
dollars less than it actually is."
Yes. I wouldn't trust
any info PGL provides without clear links from objective
sources.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:05 PM
Pinkybum said in reply to anne...
Surely you would want to express this number at least as
inflation adjusted per-capita dollars (which GDP sort-of
captures.)
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 02:55 PM
ilsm said in reply to pgl...
I like the OMB historical tables that reflects
outlay/ordering authority that is the checking account to
obligate money which might not show up in GDP expenditures
for delivery for years.
Tracking GDP metric is limited in
perspective, it shows what was delivered and paid for in the
accounting year. It does not show what is on the order books
nor what new stuff is added to the order books.
If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense
account included (not all) declined to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a
good source for GDP activity.
There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend
from FY 2009 through today.
Why I am not sure measuring GDP impact without getting
some account information on backlog procurements means much
for any country.
"... Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought." ..."
"... *An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties. ..."
Vladimir
Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, frequently points to this history. He sees a
straight line from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color revolutions," in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan,
and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of the uprisings of the
Arab Spring. Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests
in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave the
signal," Putin said. "They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, began active
work." (No evidence was provided for the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and civil-society
groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and
the election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised instruments of regime change.
... .. ...
Initially, members of the Russian élite celebrated Clinton's disappearance from the scene, and
the new drift toward an America First populism that would leave Russia alone. The fall of Michael
Flynn and the prospect of congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm. Fyodor
Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing
pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies, might now have
to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."
In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has the political latitude to end sanctions
against Moscow and accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the shifting mood in
Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage of the
new President.
... ... ...
*An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded
Russian political parties.
This shows Trump and his highest campaign officials at the time complicit in pro-Russian spin
and from those in contact with Russia in the Trump campaign
"Trump Ally Drastically Changes Story About Altering GOP Platform On Ukraine"
By Allegra Kirkland....March 3, 2017....2:16 PM EDT
"In a significant reversal, a Trump campaign official on Thursday told CNN that he personally
advocated for softening the language on Ukraine in the GOP platform at the Republican National
Convention, and that he did so on behalf of the President.nnb877
CNN's Jim Acosta reported on air that J.D. Gordon, the Trump campaign's national security policy
representative at the RNC, told him that he made the change to include language that he claimed
"Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for" at a March 2016 meeting at then-unfinished Trump
International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Gordon claimed that Trump said he did not "want to go to World War III over Ukraine" during
that meeting, Acosta said.
Yet Gordon had told Business Insider in January that he "never left" the side table where he
sat monitoring the national security subcommittee meeting, where a GOP delegate's amendment calling
for the provision of "lethal defense weapons" to the Ukrainian army was tabled. At the time, Gordon
said "neither Mr. Trump nor [former campaign manager] Mr. [Paul] Manafort were involved in those
sort of details, as they've made clear."
Discussion of changes to the platform, which drew attention to the ties to a pro-Russia political
party in Ukraine that fueled Manafort's resignation as Trump's campaign chairman, resurfaced Thursday
in a USA Today story. The newspaper revealed that Gordon and Carter Page, another former Trump
adviser, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the GOP convention.
Trump and his team have long insisted that his campaign had no contact with Russian officials
during the 2016 race, and that they were not behind softening the language on Ukraine in the Republican
Party platform."...
This is not an update re: "Trump's Pro-Russiaism".
This is an update of your complete lack of understanding of political situation.
There was a pretty cold and nasty calculation on Trump's part to split Russia-China alliance
which does threaten the USA global hegemony. Now those efforts are discredited and derailed. Looks
like the US neoliberal elite is slightly suicidal. But that's good: the sooner we get rid of neoliberalism,
the better.
Sill Dems hysteria (in association with some Repugs like war hawks John McCain and Lindsey
Graham) does strongly smells with neo-McCarthyism. McCain and Graham are probably playing this
dirty game out of pure enthusiasm: Trump does not threatens MIC from which both were elected.
He just gave them all the money they wanted. But for Dems this is en essential smoke screen to
hide their fiasco and blame evil Russians.
In other words citing Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. "
This farce of making Russians a scapegoat for all troubles does make some short-term political
sense as it distracts from the fact the Dems were abandoned by its base. And it unites the nation
providing some political support for chickenhawks in US Congress for the next elections.
But in a long run the price might be a little bit too high. If Russian and China formalize
their alliance this is the official end for the US neoliberal empire. Britain will jump the sinking
ship first, because they do not have completely stupid elite.
BTW preventing Cino-Russian alliance is what British elite always tried to do (and was successful)
in the past -- but in their time the main danger for them was the alliance of Germany and Russia
-- two major continental powers.
Still short-termism is a feature of US politics, and we can do nothing against those forces
that fuel the current anti-Russian hysteria.
The evil rumors at the time of original McCarthyism hysteria were that this was at least partially
a smoke screen designed to hide smuggling of Nazi scientists and intelligence operatives into
the USA (McCarthy was from Wisconsin, the state in German immigrant majority from which famous
anti-WWI voice Robert M. La Follette was elected (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette_Sr.))
So here there might well be also some hidden motives, because everybody, including even you
understands that "Trump is in the pocket of Russians" hypothesis is pure propaganda (BTW Hillary
did take bribes from Russian oligarchs, that's proven, but Caesar's wife must be above suspicion).
What we are witnessing is the truth coming out, too slowly for some of us, but it surely will
come out eventually despite the best efforts of Trump's WH, Gang, and his Republican lackies to
cover it up.
You probably would be better off sticking to posting music from YouTube then trying to understand
complex political events and posting political junk from US MSM in pretty prominent economic blog
(overtaking Fred)
Especially taking into account the fact that English is the only language you know and judging
from your posts you do not have degrees in either economics or political science (although some
people here with computer science background proved to be shrewd analysts of both economic and
political events; cm is one example).
Although trying to read British press will not hurt you, they do provide a better coverage
of US political events then the USA MSM. Even neoliberal Guardian. So if you can't fight your
urge to repost political junk please try to do it from British press.
As for your question: in 20 years we might know something about who played what hand in this
dirty poker, but even this is not given (JFK assassination is a classic example here; Gulf of
Tonkin incident is another)
"... I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria. ..."
It seems that the last worthwhile president we had was JFK. He started out his presidency as a Cold
Warrior but at the end saw the futility of being involved in Vietnam and of the cold war in general.
At the time there was a very strong anti-communist pro-war sentiment in the US which resonated well
with the military industrial complex that Kennedy was up against when his views became more conciliatory
with Russia. This anti-Russian sentiment is trying to be re-whipped up in the US but isn't finding as
receptive an audience.
Kennedy essentially lost control of his presidency. Trump seems to be facing similar pressures but
I don't think he's so isolated in his battles. He has strong allies in both the military and industry
and there is a different public sentiment.
I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could
be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our
current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria.
Russia seems to be treating its Arab neighbors with more respect and it would be good if Trump could
get on that train. It would also be good to see Trump transition to a more climate friendly attitude
such as partnering with China on solar energy.
Weakened Democrats Bow to Voters, Opting for Total War on Trump
By JONATHAN MARTIN and ALEXANDER BURNS
FEB. 23, 2017
Reduced to their weakest state in a generation, Democratic Party leaders will gather in two
cities this weekend to plot strategy and select a new national chairman with the daunting task
of rebuilding the party's depleted organization. But senior Democratic officials concede that
the blueprint has already been chosen for them - by an incensed army of liberals demanding no
less than total war against President Trump.
attack trump, fear Russia, ignore the deep state, scare them about racists and fascists*, there
is nothing going to be fixed by the new crooks running the new DNC
* a few of tonight's pity party decorations.........
"... The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its flock. The terrorists that want to kill us for our liberties You should have included this in your article. ..."
The trend is to Deep State co-opt democracy, and use it overthrow legit goverment and
replace it will neoliberal stooges what pray on the altor of democracy-killing Globalism that
makes of all governments just enforces for wishes of multinationals. Corporatism does not involves
any real democracy, not at all.
Bacevich is one of our very few strategic thinkers. What Bacevich has disclosed
here is something far more significant than merely the faults of Brooks' or of
neoconservatism generally (and to be fair, where Brooks goes beyond
neoconservatism/nationalism, he can be thoughtful).
What he has disclosed in fact is that America's primary - I emphasize again,
primary - strategic threat is not N. Korea, or radical Islam, or Russia, but
its own revolutionary, messianic, expansionist ideology. That is the source of
our woes, our growing insecurities and looming financial bankruptcy (to say
nothing of the sufferings of millions of our victims).
America's strategic problem is its own mental imprisonment: its
self-worship, its inability to view itself - its destructive acts as well as
its pet handful of ideas torn from the complex fabric of a truly vibrant
culture - with any critical distance or objectivity.
Joined to that, and as a logical consequence of it - the United States'
persistent inability to view with any objectivity its endless, often
manufactured enemies.
Somehow the current situation in
the U.S. reminds me of the end of a TV miniseries, "Merlin", where Sam Neil
plays the role of Merlin. At the end, Merlin speaks to his archenemy, Morgana,
that she will loose her grip on the people because they will just stop
believing in her and her powers. And as he speaks, the group of countrymen
surrounding Merlin turn their back one after another at Morgana and after the
last one turns her back, Morgana simply vanishes
The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other
respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its
flock. The terrorists that want to kill us for our liberties You should have
included this in your article.
Also, mentioning Jerusalem, a place of madness and fervor, and pain, and
strife, that has brought nothing civilizational to the world, as in par with
Rome, Athens, Baghdad, Florence, and other cultural centres in Iran, China,
India, Japan, is an overstretch
President Dwight Eisenhower's warning about the dangers of the
military-industrial complex made half a century ago ring as loud and clear today
.
The soft coup being mounted against the Trump government by America's 'deep state'
reached a new intensity this week as special interests battled for control of
Washington.
The newly named national security advisor, Lt Gen Michael Flynn, was
ousted by Trump over his chats with Russia's ambassador and what he may or may not have
told Vice President Pence. The defenestration of Flynn appeared engineered by our
national intelligence agencies in collaboration with the mainstream media and certain
Democrats.
Flynn's crime? Talking to the wicked Russians before and after the election.
Big, big deal. That's what security advisors are supposed to do: keep an open back
channel to other major powers and allies. This is also the job of our intelligence
agencies.
There is no good or bad in international affairs. The childish concept of 'good guys'
and 'bad guys' comes from the Bush era when simple-minded voters had to be convinced
that America was somehow in grave danger from a bunch of angry Mideast goat herds.
The only nations that could threaten America's very existence are nuclear
powers Russia, China, India, France, Britain and Israel (and maybe Pakistan) in that
order.
Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on the US mainland. Any real war
with Russia would invite doom for both nations. Two near misses are more than enough.
Remember the 1962 Cuban missile confrontation and the terrifying 1983 Able Archer scare
– near thermonuclear war caused by Ronald Reagan's anti-Russian hysteria and Moscow's
panicked response.
Margolis' #1 rule of international relations: make nice and keep on good
terms with nations that have nuclear weapons pointed at you. Avoid squabbles over almost
all matters. Intelligence agencies play a key role in maintaining the balance of nuclear
terror and preventing misunderstandings that can cause war.
Gen. Flynn was a fanatical anti-Islamic wing nut. He was, to use Trumpese, a bigly
terrible choice. I'm glad he is gone. But Flynn's sin was being loopy, not talking on
the phone to the Russian ambassador. The White House and national intelligence should be
talking every day to Moscow, even 'hi Boris, what's new with you guys? 'Nothing much new
here either besides the terrible traffic.'
The current hue and cry in the US over
Flynn's supposed infraction is
entirely a fake political ambush to cripple the Trump administration.
Trump
caved in much too fast. The deep state is after his scalp: he has threatened to cut the
$80 billion per annum intelligence budget – which alone, boys and girls, is larger than
Russia's entire defense budget! He's talking about rooting waste out of the Pentagon's
almost trillion-dollar budget, spending less on NATO, and ending some of America's
imperial wars abroad.
What's to like about Trump if you're a member of the war party and
military-industrial-intelligence-Wall Street complex?
The complex wants
its golden girl Hilary Clinton in charge. She unleashed the current tsunami of
anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Vladimir Putin which shows, sadly, that many
Americans have not grown beyond the days of Joe McCarthy.
As a long-time student of Cold War intelligence, my conclusion is that both sides
knew pretty much what the other was up to, though KGB and GRU were more professional and
skilled than western special services. It would be so much easier and cheaper just to
share information on a demand basis. But that would stop the Great Game.
It's sickening watching the arrant hypocrisy and windbaggery in Washington
over alleged Russian espionage and manipulation.
The US has been buying and
manipulating foreign governments since 1945. We even tapped German Chancellor Angela
Merkel's cell phone. This week Wikileaks issued an intercept on CIA spying and
manipulation of France's 2012 election.
We live in a giant glass house.
The Russians are not our pals. Nor are they the evil empire.
We have
to normalize our thinking about Russia, grow up and stop using Moscow as a political
bogeyman to fight our own internal political battles.
Right now, I'm more worried about the far right crazies in the Trump White House than
I am about the Ruskis and Vlad the Bad.
"... Exclusive: Democrats, liberals and media pundits – in their rush to take down President Trump – are pushing a New McCarthyism aimed at Americans who have talked to Russians, risking a new witch hunt. ..."
"... As Democrats compete to become the new War Party – pushing for a dangerous confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia – some constituents are objecting, as Mike Madden did in a letter to Sen. Amy Klobuchar. ..."
Exclusive: Democrats, liberals and media pundits – in
their rush to take down President Trump – are pushing a New
McCarthyism aimed at Americans who have talked to Russians,
risking a new witch hunt.
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign;
the Deep State Rises to the Surface
by Diana Johnstone
As if the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign hadn't
been horrendous enough, here comes another one: in France.
The system in France is very different, with multiple
candidates in two rounds, most of them highly articulate, who
often even discuss real issues. Free television time reduces
the influence of big money. The first round on April 23 will
select the two finalists for the May 7 runoff, allowing for
much greater choice than in the United States.
But monkey see, monkey do, and the mainstream political
class wants to mimic the ways of the Empire, even echoing the
theme that dominated the 2016 show across the Atlantic: the
evil Russians are messing with our wonderful democracy.
The aping of the U.S. system began with "primaries" held
by the two main governing parties which obviously aspire to
establish themselves as the equivalent of American Democrats
and Republicans in a two-party system. The right-wing party
of former president Nicolas Sarkozy has already renamed
itself Les Républicains and the so-called Socialist Party
leaders are just waiting for the proper occasion to call
themselves Les Démocrates. But as things are going, neither
one of them may come out ahead this time.
As Democrats compete to become the new War Party –
pushing for a dangerous confrontation with nuclear-armed
Russia – some constituents are objecting, as Mike Madden did
in a letter to Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
From Mike Madden (of St. Paul, Minnesota)
Dear Senator Klobuchar, I write with concern over
statements you have made recently regarding Russia.
These statements have been made both at home and abroad,
and they involve two issues; the alleged Russian hack of the
presidential election and Russia's actions in the aftermath
of the February 22, 2014 coup in Kiev.
U.S. intelligence services allege that President Vladimir
Putin ordered an influence campaign to denigrate Hillary
Clinton and help elect Donald Trump. The campaign is
purported to include the production of fake news,
cyber-trolling, and propaganda from Russian state-owned
media. It is also alleged that Russia hacked the email
accounts of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton
campaign chair John Podesta, subsequently providing the
emails to WikiLeaks.
Despite calls from many quarters, the intelligence
services have not provided the public with any proof.
Instead, Americans are expected to blindly trust these
services with a long history of failure. Additionally, the
former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and
the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John
Brennan, have both been known to lie to the public and to
Congress, Mr. Clapper doing so under oath.
Meanwhile, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange maintains the
emails did not come from Russia (or any other state actor)
and his organization has an unblemished record of revealing
accurate information in the public interest that would
otherwise remain hidden. While responsible journalists
continue to use the word 'alleged' to describe the
accusations, Republicans with an ax to grind against Russia,
and Democrats wishing to distract from their own failings in
the campaign, refer to them as fact. Indeed, on the Amy in
the News page of your own website, Jordain Carney of The Hill
refers to the Russian meddling as "alleged".
A congressional commission to investigate the alleged
Russian hacking is not necessary. Even if all the allegations
are true, they are altogether common occurrences, and they
certainly don't rise to the level of "an act of aggression",
"an existential threat to our way of life", or "an attack on
the American people" as various Democratic officials have
characterized them. Republican Senator John McCain went full
monty and called the alleged meddling "an act of war".
Joining War Hawks
It is of concern that you would join Senator McCain and
the equally belligerent Senator Lindsey Graham on a tour of
Russian provocation through the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia,
and Montenegro. The announcement of your trip (December 28,
2016) on the News Releases page of your website renewed the
unproven claim of "Russian interference in our recent
election". It also claimed that the countries you were
visiting were facing "Russian aggression" and that "Russia
illegally annexed Crimea".
It is unfortunate that these claims have become truisms by
sheer repetition rather than careful examination of the
facts. Russia has not invaded eastern Ukraine. There are no
regular units of the Russian military in the breakaway
provinces, nor has Russia launched any air strikes from its
territory. It has sent weapons and other provisions to the
Ukrainian forces seeking autonomy from Kiev, and there are
most certainly Russian volunteers operating in Ukraine.
However regrettable, it must be remembered that the unrest
was precipitated by the February 22, 2014 overthrow of the
democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych which,
speaking of meddling, was assisted by U.S. State Department,
other American government agencies, and one Senator John
McCain. The subsequent military and paramilitary operations
launched by the coup government against the People's
Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk were described by President
Putin as "uncontrolled crime" spreading into the south and
east of the country. In American parlance, both the interim
coup government in Kiev and the current government of
President Petro Poroshenko have engaged in "killing their own
people".
"... Blackmailing Russia can probably be viewed as just an attempt to avoid asking uncomfortable questions (Like who is guilty and who should go to jail ;-) , and to distract the attention from the real problems. As if the return us to the good old Obama days of universal deceit (aka "change we can believe in") , can solve the problems the country faces. ..."
"... As Galbright put it: "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith ..."
"... Neoliberal economists often talk about "flexible labor markets" as desirable but I don't think Krugman ever has. Maybe he has in a roundabout, indirect way. ..."
At risk of being flamed by everybody else with an opinion on this matter, I can see both sides
of the issue:
You are correct if Trump is not selling out to Russia.
You are also correct if (1) Trump *is* selling out to Russia, *AND* (2) his voters were aware
that he is selling out to Russia, but voted for him with eyes wide open on that issue.
In either of those two cases the Intelligence Community leakers are trying to subvert the democratic
will of the people in elected Trump president.
You are wrong if: (1) Trump is selling out to Russia, *AND* (2) his voters did not believe
it when they voted for him. In this case the Intelligence Community leakers, in my opinion, are
patriotic heroes.
Just because the Intellligence Community is not laying the sources of its intelligence out
in the open on the table does not mean that the leakers are wrong. My suspicion is that they are
correct (see, e.g., Josh Marshall today. Google is your friend.) The deeper problem is that I
suspect Trump's voters simply don't care, even if the Intelligence Community is correct.
I did a mini max regret: More regret with Clinton sold out to neoliberal profiteering war mongers
who care only for perpetual war, the max regret I see is unneeded nuclear war over a few hundred
thousand Estonians who hate Russia since the Hanseatic league was suppressed by Ivan the Terrible.
Lesser regret with Trump sold out to Russia* that would only bring China I against both US
and Russia in about 50 years.
*Trump sold to Russia is Clintonista/Stalinist fantasia sold by the yellow press.
I disagree. It is not enough that Trump voters were aware of Trump selling out to Russia and didn't
care; if there had been conclusive proof of that before the election, other people might have
come out to vote against him.
Besides, some of his voters might not care and some might.
In any case, whether the leakers are patriots or traitors does not have to do with subverting
"the will of the people". At the most extreme, leaks could lead to, say, impeachment, which is
another way to express the will of the people. (Or actually, the will of the plutocrats and their
Republican and Democratic running dogs, but that's another discussion).
New Deal democrat and couple of other Hillary enthusiasts here used to sing quite a different
song as for Hillary bathroom email server ;-).
Russia bogeyman (or "ruse" as Trump aptly defined it) is now used to swipe under the carpet
the crisis of neoliberal ideology and the collapse of Democratic Party which is still dominated
by Clinton wing of soft neoliberals). Chickhawks like a couple of people here (for example, im1dc),
are always want to fight another war, but using some other ("less valuable") peoples bodies as
the target of enemy fire.
Democratic Party now is playing an old and very dirty trick called "Catch the thief", when
they are the thief.
Why we are not discussing the key issue: how the redistribution of wealth up during the last
two decades destabilized the country both economically and politically?
Also it is unclear whether a simple, non-painful way out exists, or this is just something
like a pre-collapse stage as happened with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR. The Damocles sword
of "peak/plato oil" hangs over neoliberal globalization. That's an undeniable and a very important
factor. Another ten (or twenty) years of the "secular stagnation", and then what? Can the current
globalized economy function with oil prices above $100 without severe downsizing.
The economic plunder of other countries like the plunder of xUSSR economic space (which helped
to save and return to growth the USA economics in 90th, providing half a billion new customers
and huge space for "dollarization") is no longer possible as there are no any new USSR that can
disintegrate.
And "artificial disintegration" of the countries to open them to neoliberal globalization (aka
"controlled chaos") like practiced in Libya and Syria proved to be quite costly and have unforeseen
side effects.
The forces that ensured Trump victory are forces that understood at least on intuitive level
that huge problems with neoliberalism need something different that kicking the can down the road,
and that Hillary might well means the subsequent economic collapse, or WWIII, or both.
Trump might not have a solution, but he was at least courageous enough to ask uncomfortable
questions.
Blackmailing Russia can probably be viewed as just an attempt to avoid asking uncomfortable
questions (Like who is guilty and who should go to jail ;-) , and to distract the attention from
the real problems. As if the return us to the good old Obama days of universal deceit (aka "change
we can believe in") , can solve the problems the country faces.
And when neoliberal presstitutes in MSM now blackmail Trump and try to stage "purple"
color revolution, this might well be a sign of desperation, not strength.
They have no solution for the country problem, they just want to kick the can down the road
and enjoy their privileges while the country burns.
As Galbright put it: "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather
than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith
If you are peddling developed land then you want low interest rates for your customers so that
you can get the highest price for your developments. Still there might theoretically be a narrow
channel that your deal might slip through if commercial real estate were for some reason assigned
a lower risk premium than residential, but ordinarily the opposite is true.
A higher percentage of new businesses fail than new households and if more new households fail
then even more new businesses will fail right along with them.
The one possibility for Trump to have it this way would be that he crashes the US economy and
all new commercial development would be for Russian tourist to visit America while either deflation
and depression or Weimar scale inflation was suppressing prices for US goods in real ruble terms.
I expect that if you look at the pre-bellum South, there will be plenty of examples of stagnant
wages, low interest rates...
In Mexico, wages never rose regardless of monetary policy.
The point that I've been making for a while: despite a few progressive economists delusions
for rapid economic growth to tighten wages, it won't happen for the following reasons.
1) most employers will just say 'no,' probably encouraged centrally by the US Chamber of Commerce
and other industry associations. Collusion? You bet.
2) employers will just move jobs abroad, where there's plenty of slack. Flexible labor markets
has been one of the big goals of globalization, promoted by the usual suspects including 'librul'
economists like Krugman.
3) immigration, which will be temporarily constrained as Trump deports people, but will ultimately
be resumed as employers demand cheap, malleable labor.
I disagree. It happened in late 90s. The ideas you mention are factors, including the decline
of unions.
What has happened in recent decades is that asset bubbles - like the dot.com and housing bubbles
- have popped sending a high pressure economy into a low pressure one with higher unemployment.
Neoliberal economists often talk about "flexible labor markets" as desirable but I don't
think Krugman ever has. Maybe he has in a roundabout, indirect way.
Fed funds rates were consistently about double the rate of inflation.
The fact that the economy boomed and wages increased was due to the tech boom--an unrepeatable
anomaly. The Fed and Clinton administration unsuccessfully attempted to stifle it with high rates
and budget balancing.
To make sure that wages never rose again, Clinton signed China PNTR, granting China access
to WTO, ushering in the great sucking sound of jobs going to China. Krugman cheered.
If the neoliberal elite can't part with at least a small part of their privileges, the political
destabilization will continue and they might lose everything.
"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any
material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith
"... Bloomberg, like WaPo and NYT, is "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State" ..."
"... Thank God they stopped their Putin-did-it nonsense. Now they have found something new along the lines Trump-did-it. Both those attempts to control the narrative are false and dishonest. ..."
"... I understand that Trump is now assigned to be as designated scapegoat for all blunders of three previous neoliberal administrations. ..."
"America's Biggest Creditors Dump Treasuries in Warning to Trump"
by Brian Chappatta...February 12, 2017...5:00 PM EST
> Japanese investors cull U.S. government debt by most since '13
> Currency-hedged returns were worst on record last quarter
"In the age of Trump, America's biggest foreign creditors are suddenly having second thoughts
about financing the U.S. government.
In Japan, the largest holder of Treasuries, investors culled their stakes in December by
the most in almost four years, the Ministry of Finance's most recent figures show. What's striking
is the selling has persisted at a time when going abroad has rarely been so attractive. And
it's not just the Japanese. Across the world, foreigners are pulling back from U.S. debt like
never before.
From Tokyo to Beijing and London, the consensus is clear: few overseas investors want to
step into the $13.9 trillion U.S. Treasury market right now. Whether it's the prospect of bigger
deficits and more inflation under President Donald Trump or higher interest rates from the
Federal Reserve, the world's safest debt market seems less of a sure thing -- particularly
after the upswing in yields since November. And then there is Trump's penchant for saber rattling,
which has made staying home that much easier.
"It may be more difficult than usual for Japanese to invest in Treasuries and the dollar
this year because of political uncertainty," said Kenta Inoue, chief strategist for overseas
bond investments at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities in Tokyo. "Treasury yields may
rise rapidly again in the near future, which will continue to discourage them from buying aggressively."
Nobody is saying that foreigners will abandon Treasuries altogether. After all, they still
hold $5.94 trillion, or roughly 43 percent of the U.S. government debt market. (Though that's
down from 56 percent in 2008.) A significant drawdown can harm major holders like Japan and
China as much as it does the U.S.
And, of course, homegrown demand has of late been able to absorb the pickup in overseas
selling..."
Bloomberg, like WaPo and NYT, is "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State"
Thank God they stopped their Putin-did-it nonsense. Now they have found something new along
the lines Trump-did-it. Both those attempts to control the narrative are false and dishonest.
I understand that Trump is now assigned to be as designated scapegoat for all blunders of three
previous neoliberal administrations.
But can you please ask yourself two very simple questions:
Who and how accumulated that much debt?
Who did run the wars of neoliberal empire expansion to the tune of five trillion dollars?
Was it Trump?
I would greatly appreciated if you can answer them in the reply to this post. Or, even better,
make some pause in posting neoliberal propaganda.
"... By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth ..."
"... British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow can play that game too. He has loudly advertized his refusal to let Trump address UK politicians in the House of Commons and the House of Lords: "An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right, it is an earned honor.." It's an honor recently gifted to the likes of China President Xi Jinping and the Emir of Kuwait. Fine and upstanding gentlemen in the tradition Britain so likes, nothing like the American President whom he accuses of racism and sexism. ..."
"... The political/media black hole exists in many other countries too; we are truly entering a whole new phase in both domestic and global affairs. That is what allows for the Trumps and Le Pens of the world to appeal to people; there is nobody else left that people can have any faith in. The system(s) are broken beyond repair, and anyone perceived as belonging to them will be cast aside. Not all at the same time, but all of them nonetheless. ..."
"... my favorite dump on trump was the times article about the special ops raid in yemen. the obama team planned it, trump pulled the trigger. now we learn the yemen government is against special ops raid. (yemen has a government?) we also learn from the times that obama wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky! So saint obama is the good killer, trump the bad killer. it makes you sympathetic to trump. but i think alot of us thought trump would calm down some once in office. calling judiciary names, saying they can't even understand concepts that a "bad high school student" can, is not, what's the word, adult? and you can't ignore the sinister intent behind the muslim ban–it's based on propaganda and fear–it's provenance is neocon. ..."
"... In complete agreement with you about the dump trump article praising saint obama to the skies because obama allegedly "refused" to OK the special ops raid on Yemen, but Trump did. LIke, THIS time obama "refused" to do it? Why? Speculation is futile, but my speculation is that Obama held off in order to have it fall on Trump. Then Obama could skippity do dah off into the sunset with his burnished halo in tact. ..."
"... Following Disturbed Voter's comment above – we can usefully distinguish 3 different levels of dishonesty by how hard they are to detect: ..."
"... Level 1 – the everyday liar/hypocrite whose dishonesty we notice over time by observing that what they do is not consistent with what they say, ..."
"... Level 2- the regular criminal who hides his honesty from public view, to profit from it, but can be caught by effective law enforcement, and ..."
"... Level 3- the State Intelligence agency with extreme levels of funding, novel tech. capabilities, secrecy, & ability to ignore or even control law enforcement and large chunks of the public mass media. ..."
"... It's the Level 3 category that society has become relatively defenseless against. Alternative media carries report after report on how the Iraq War was phony, how the US created al Qaeda and ISIS, how Cheney planned to invade Iraq and 6 other Middle East nations on Sept. 20, 2 ..."
"... One word that describes our precious country is incompetence. We have gone from being the 'we-can-do-it' nation that put a man on the Moon to the 'hire a Mexican to do it' nation that cannot find its ass with both hands. The fact of our dysfunction and the country's reliance on migrant labor are what gives form to the efforts of Donald Trump. Yet he acts against himself: he is the lazy-man of American politics who requires others to do his heavy lifting. This does not mean physical labor but instead the struggle to become clear in the mind, to craft out of disparate- and contradictory elements a policy outline or philosophy of governing. This is never attempted, it is too difficult, instead there is the recycling of old, bankrupt memes. The candidate's absence of effort leaves a residue of personality: Trump is a blank page upon which others paint in the sketch, an actor who aims to meet (diminished) public expectations and nothing more, sound and fury significant of nothing in particular. ..."
"... . But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is. We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination ..."
By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Automatic Earth
Two and a half weeks after the inauguration, and yes it's only been that long, the media still
don't seem to have learned a single thing. They help the Trump campaign on an almost hourly basis
by parroting whatever things, invariably judged as crazy, he says. One day it's that negative
polls are all fake news, the next it's some list of underreported terror events. All of it gets
an avalanche of attention provided by the very people who claim to be against Trump, but greatly
help his cause by doing so.
Not a single thing learned. If Trump tweets tomorrow that tomatoes are really fruits and he's
going to have someone draw up a law to make them so, or that Lego should be recognized as an official
building material in order to have the Danes, too, pay for the wall, it will be on the front page
of every paper and the opening item for every TV news show. The crazier he makes them, the more
serious they are taken. The echo chamber is so eager to incessantly repeat to itself and all its
inhabitants that he's a crazy dude, it's beyond embarrassing.
And it takes us ever further away, and rapidly too, from any serious discussion about serious
issues, the one very thing that the Trump empire desperately calls for. The press should simply
ignore the crazy stuff and focus on what's real, but they can't bring themselves to do so for
fear of losing ratings and ad revenues. All Trump needs to do, and that's not a joke, is to fart
or burp into their echo chamber and they'll all be happy and giddy and all excited and self-satisfied.
A spectacle to behold if ever there was one.
British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow can play that game too. He has loudly advertized
his refusal to let Trump address UK politicians in the House of Commons and the House of Lords:
"An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right, it is
an earned honor.." It's an honor recently gifted to the likes of China President Xi Jinping and
the Emir of Kuwait. Fine and upstanding gentlemen in the tradition Britain so likes, nothing like
the American President whom he accuses of racism and sexism.
The racism part ostensibly is a reaction to Trump's Muslim ban, which, nutty though it is,
is not a Muslim ban because most Muslims are not affected by it, and besides, 'Muslim' is not
a race. So maybe Bercow would care to explain the 'racism' bit. Has anyone seen the British press
pressuring him to do so? Or, alternatively, has anyone seen a thorough analysis of the British
role, though its military and its weapons manufacturers, in the premature deaths in the Middle
East and North Africa of many thousands of men, women and children belonging to the Muslim 'race'?
Not me.
The 'sexism' accusation refers to Trump's utterances on for instance the Billy Bush tape(s),
and by all means let's get the Donald to comment on that. But this comes from a man who speaks
as an official representative of the Queen of a country where child sex abuse is a national sport,
from politics to churches to football, where literally thousands of children are trying to speak
up and testify, after having been silenced, ignored and ridiculed for years, about the unspeakable
experiences in their childhood. Surely someone who because of his job description gets to speak
in the name of the Queen can be expected to address the behavior of her own subjects before that
of strangers.
Yeah, that Trump guy is a real terrible person. And he should not be allowed to speak to a
chamber full of people directly responsible for the death of huge numbers of children in far away
sandboxes, for or the abuse of them at home. After all, we're all good Christians and the good
book teaches us about "the beam out of thine own eye". So we're good to go.
What this really tells you is to what extent the political systems in the US and the UK, along
with the media that serve them, have turned into a massive void, a vortex, a black hole from which
any reflection, criticism or self-awareness can no longer escape. By endlessly and relentlessly
pointing to someone, anyone, outside of their own circle of 'righteousness' and political correctness,
they have all managed to implant one view of reality in their voters and viewers, while at the
same time engaging in the very behavior they accuse the people of that they point to. For profit.
Child sex abuse has been a staple of British society for a long time, we're talking at least
decades. Only now is it starting, but only starting, to be recognized as the vile problem it is.
But still many Britons feel entirely justified in demonizing a man who once talked about touching
the genitals of grown women. If that did happen against their will, it's repulsive. But still,
there's that beam, guys. Read your bible.
The political/media black hole exists in many other countries too; we are truly entering
a whole new phase in both domestic and global affairs. That is what allows for the Trumps and
Le Pens of the world to appeal to people; there is nobody else left that people can have any faith
in. The system(s) are broken beyond repair, and anyone perceived as belonging to them will be
cast aside. Not all at the same time, but all of them nonetheless.
Whether you call the menu the people have been fed, fake or false or just plain nonsense, it
makes no difference. The British House of Commons Speaker may not be such a bad guy inside, he's
probably just another victim of the falsehoods, denials and deceit spread 24/7. The difference
between them and ordinary citizens is that Her Majesty's representatives in the political field
MUST know. They get paid good salaries to represent the Queen's subjects, and looking the other
way as children get assaulted and raped does not fit their job description.
That goes for representatives of the church (i.e. Jesus) just as much of course, and for the
execs at the BBC, but about as many of those people are behind bars as there are bankers. For
anyone at all at any of these institutions to now speak with great indignation about Trump's alleged
racism and sexism is the very core of all of their problems, the very reason why so many turn
their backs on them. It shows that the very core or our societies is rotten, and the rot is spreading.
We are facing a lot of problems, all of us, in many different ways, financially, politically,
morally. But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is.
We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people
while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media
feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination.
The longer this braindead attitude prevails, the worse things will get, and the more Trumps
will surface as leaders of their respective countries. And the longer the attitude prevails, the
more anger we will spread in those parts of the world that do not belong to our 'chosen' societies.
And for that we will have only ourselves to blame. Not Trump.
Citizens and politicians are in a social compact, so it is said. Both sides may have defaulted
on the agreement, something the Enlightenment didn't anticipate. In the modern era of triangulation,
opposition parties, that used to keep each other relatively honest, no longer do that. In the
modern era of media consolidation, opposition newspapers, that used to keep each other relatively
honest, no longer do that. Be are being suffocated by de facto bi-partisanship, that is just
a shadow play of its former partisanship. The status quo has gone stale.
my favorite dump on trump was the times article about the special ops raid in yemen.
the obama team planned it, trump pulled the trigger. now we learn the yemen government is against
special ops raid. (yemen has a government?) we also learn from the times that obama wouldn't
have gone through with the raid because too risky! So saint obama is the good killer, trump
the bad killer. it makes you sympathetic to trump. but i think alot of us thought trump would
calm down some once in office. calling judiciary names, saying they can't even understand concepts
that a "bad high school student" can, is not, what's the word, adult? and you can't ignore
the sinister intent behind the muslim ban–it's based on propaganda and fear–it's provenance
is neocon.
In complete agreement with you about the dump trump article praising saint obama to
the skies because obama allegedly "refused" to OK the special ops raid on Yemen, but Trump
did. LIke, THIS time obama "refused" to do it? Why? Speculation is futile, but my speculation
is that Obama held off in order to have it fall on Trump. Then Obama could skippity do dah
off into the sunset with his burnished halo in tact.
Gah.
Agree with the second part of your comment, too. I wish Trump would behave differently.
The comment about the judiciary was incredibly wrong and also very stupid. His fervent fans
may well clap and cheer for that, but Trump is painting himself into some corners by behaving
that way. The Judiciary and lawyers – a powerful group in this nation, for better or worse
– simply aren't going to take that laying down. Although I'm sure the judiciary will (mostly)
strive for objective impartiality.
The stupid media would serve themselves, their Oligarch owners, and the nation better if
they ignored the bulk of Trump's dumb tweets and focus more closely on what he and his Admin
are doing.
Following Disturbed Voter's comment above – we can usefully distinguish 3 different
levels of dishonesty by how hard they are to detect:
Level 1 – the everyday liar/hypocrite whose dishonesty we notice over time
by observing that what they do is not consistent with what they say,
Level 2- the regular criminal who hides his honesty from public view, to profit
from it, but can be caught by effective law enforcement, and
Level 3- the State Intelligence agency with extreme levels of funding, novel tech.
capabilities, secrecy, & ability to ignore or even control law enforcement and large chunks
of the public mass media.
It's the Level 3 category that society has become relatively defenseless against. Alternative
media carries report after report on how the Iraq War was phony, how the US created al Qaeda
and ISIS, how Cheney planned to invade Iraq and 6 other Middle East nations on Sept. 20, 2001
– not because of any links to US created al Qaeda – and a big chunk of that plan is still being
carried out today, 4 Presidential terms later.
While we don't know much about what the intelligence agencies do, by design, we do know
a few things. That in the conditions of the early Cold War, and given the mandate against all
enemies foreign and domestic (the oath the military takes) that narrative control is a vital
weapon. We know that journalists, clergy and even rock stars have been actual agents, so the
number of fellow travelers must be considerable. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it has
been necessary, so it was thought by some, to manufacture new enemies on a Vietnam scale. And
the exercise and paranoia against domestic enemies has returned to 1960s levels as well.
For the old men nostalgic for the 60s, from the neocon side, these last few decades have been
sweet.
Materially, all we really need is to cover and protect our body from the elements and food.
Everything else is gravy.
Psychologically, we need a lot more than what North American society offers most of us today
but for some reasons we keep on lying to ourselves thinking that if we had a little more stuff
we'd be happier.
We all have to lie to ourselves thousands of times a day to keep our routines and lifestyles
and all these lies make society.
Hey Yves, the tomato question does seem to have something to it: "Nix v. Hedden (1893) was
a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that, under U.S. customs regulations,
the tomato should be classified as a vegetable rather than a fruit". From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden
.
Note to Ilargi: re tomatoes, somebody got there before Trump :-)
I think a great number of people in the US and in Europe do not trust the MSM any more,
even though they may continue to pay attention as a spectator sport (people do enjoy yelling
at their TV sets). Activism is another ball game that is still being played, but in the US
it has become nearly futile because of the restrictions and police tactics used to squelch
them or shut them down. It can also be impossible to distinguish between genuine protesters,
paid participants, and shit-disturbers or agents-provocateurs, which dilutes the message (questionable
intent by those who want to promote or discredit the demonstration).
Having read the comments here and on other independent sites for a long time, I've noticed
the tremendous increase in articulate and aware commenters that can see through the tissues
of lies from the MSM and take even a lot of the "serious" stuff with a grain of salt, knowing
that some things don't change much and people tend to overreact based on shock-value news designed
to stir resentment and "us vs. them" divisiveness. This is encouraging because it shows people
are wising up, thinking more critically about who is really running the show (it is not
Trump by-and-large), and not allowing their views to be manipulated.
I think Ukraine was a turning point, as the lying of the media was just way too obvious.
That opened a lot of eyes. The reporting on Greece and Merkel/Schäuble's austerity terror was
equally bad, but not many people understand that.
I believe it was Iraq. When they named the 2003 invasion Operation Iraqi Liberation, or
O.I.L. , all the pretense of it being for any legit reason was gone.
Huh? Iraq? Did I miss something?
I heard about some thingy where we wasted trillions of dollars and killed millions of people.
But all of the people who thought THAT was a good idea are gone now, hiding their heads in
shame and hoping they don't get summoned to a war crimes tribunal. Right?
I believe it was the Gnadenhutten massacre. The 96 Moravian Lenape, brained with mallets,
by Washington's Virginia Militia were probably too busy clawing through their former frozen
fields, looking for corn kernels to feed their children, to pose much of a threat as terrorists?
Yes, what got to me was the Western instigated coup in Ukraine. I voted for Barrack Obama
twice but could not vote for Hillary Clinton. I rationalized that the Iraq Invasion was an
isolated crazy GOP debacle. Denial is powerful defense mechanism. If the media lies, America
is a not so innocent killer, and the Cold War 2.0 with Russia has reignited; we are screwed.
Austerity, scapegoating Russia and the flood of millions of refugees into Europe are proof
that this is the awful truth.
It's about ratings people. The president of NBC himself said it during the campaign when
someone asked why he was televising everything the Insane Clown was saying. You all need to
watch Network again. Nothing's changed. Which means they brought him up and now they will take
him down.
Ratings are to broadcast or print media as shareholder value is to corporation - the overriding
metric that blots out any reponsibility to the commons.
and the long trenchant comment by LondonBob including these paras:
"The Twitter-cheering for John Bercow, the transformation of him into a Love, Actually-style
hero of British middle-class probity against a gruff, migrant-banning Yank, could be the most
grotesque political spectacle of the year so far. Not because it's virtue-signalling, as claimed
by the handful of brave critics who've raised their heads above the online orgy of brown-nosing
to wonder if Bercow is really promoting himself rather than parliamentary decency. No, it's
worse than that. It's the lowest species of cant, hypocrisy of epic, eye-watering proportions,
an effort to erase Bercow's and Parliament's own bloody responsibility for the calamities in
the Middle East that Trump is now merely responding to, albeit very badly.
"Bercow, you see, this supposed hero of the refugees and Middle Eastern migrants temporarily
banned from the US, voted for the bombing of Iraq. He green-lighted that horror that did so
much to propel the Middle East into the pit of sorrow and savagery it currently finds itself.
As his profile on the They Work For You website puts it, 'John Bercow consistently voted for
the Iraq War'. On 18 March 2003, he voted against a motion saying the case for war hadn't been
made, even though it hadn't. On the same day he voted for the government to 'use all means
necessary' to ensure the destruction of Iraq's WMD.
"As everyone knows now, and as many of us knew back then, Iraq's WMD capacity had been vastly
exaggerated by the black propaganda of the New Labour government, by myth and misinformation
cynically whipped up to the end of providing Britain's leaders with the thrill of an overseas
moral crusade against evil. Bercow voted in favour of these lies. And he voted for the use
of 'all means necessary' to tame Saddam's regime. We know what this involved: Britain joined
the bombing campaign and courtesy of an ill-thought-through war by Western allies, Iraq was
ripped apart and condemned to more than a decade of bloodshed. And refugee crises. Bercow was
one of the authors of this calamity, one of the signatories to the Middle East's death warrant,
and now we're going to let him posture and preen against Trump's three-month ban on certain
Middle Eastern migrants? What is wrong with us?"
But kudos to kind-hearted Ilargi for willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to one
of these preening monsters!
Trump loves any kind of publicity. The media is playing right into his hand by printing
all of the garbage he generates.I know many Trump voters and supporters. They all complain
that the media is picking on Trump. None of them look seriously at what he says or does. There
universal reaction is give him a chance and quit picking on him.The media would be better off
focusing on his and congreses policy decisions and how that effect the average person. Turning
he's presidency into a big soap opera is actually helping Trump keep his supporters. I have
not heard a single Trump voter say they regret voting for Trump.
Good to see some focus on Britain's version of the Augean stables. In terms of the so called
Westminster paedophile ring – the last I heard on this it was that, Ooops .we appear to have
lost a substantial amount of vital evidence. I imagine that MI6 have on record most if not
all of the disgusting details, which I also imagine are useful assets that can be used to control
certain people.
In my opinion, this is a good explanation from 2015, of the behaviour of the BBC & the Guardian,
from journalist Jonathon Cook.
So far Trump has only really accomplished two things: he shut down the TPP and he inspired
Lena Dunham to lose some weight. Everything thing else has been more or less noise.
I've always thought this first two years of Trump's reign will involve him in bringing to
heal the establishment GOP (GOPe) Obviously during the confirmation process, Trump has to be
on his best behavior. But I don't like the pattern of Trump issuing useless EO's, and then
the Democrats going ballistic, and then Trump supporters being satiated by all the Dem whining.
That's a recipe for two years of nothing.
On the Muslim ban, there are two parts to it. The current NeoCon / NeoLib tag-team play
is to kill a million Muslims in their nations and then to offer the survivors the weak reach
around of letting a million Muslims emigrate to the West. Trump seems to be offering a different
deal. The West stops killing Muslims in Muslim nations and in return Muslims stay in Muslim
nations and stop coming to the West. We have yet to see if Trump can hold off the temptation
to start slaughtering Muslims in their nations like the NeoCons do.
I get the feeling from Trump's over-the-top reaction to the courts staying his Muslim ban
that he actually doesn't want it reinstated. I read on a pro-Trump legal blog that the Justice
Department lawyers were super weak in their arguments before the 9th Circuit court, in what
should be a super easy case to argue. Activist judges halting the ban means when the inevitable
next terrorist attack comes, Trump can blame it on the judges and make some sort of move to
purge their power.
On Iran, Trump has zero leverage and so I do not see how this is going to end well. The
only thing we can hope for is this is a bit of Kabuki being regulated by Putin. In the end
a US-Russian alliance, as Trump is proposing, means a closer relationship between the US and
Iran. Israel will not be pleased.
My theory on Trump's relationship to Israel is that he is giving them enough rope for them
to hang themselves. In Europe particularly the Israeli brand is getting fatally interwoven
with the Trump brand. So far the only thing saving Israel is diaspora Jews being able to shame
their local populations away from the BDS movement. But the diaspora is 98% anti-Trump. There
is currently a huge increase of oxygen being given to the BDS movement, which means it should
soon spring back to life.
Can Trump be allies with Israel and Russia (and Iran)? The only way I can see this happening
is a deal where Iran gets to go nuclear and become fully integrated into the global community
in exchange for allowing Hezbollah to be wiped out by Israel.
Trump is at his anti-NeoLiberal best when he is in deep trouble. I was happy when that Access
Hollywood tape came out because I knew he would have to double down on Steve Bannon and Stephen
Miller and go full-on butch economic nationalist. And it won him the election. Hopefully the
seas will get very rough soon and we can all enjoy the spectacle of full combat between Team
Trump and the GOPe.
I like the "offer the survivors a weak reacharound". Reminds me of Vietnam, where we would
napalm a village and then fall over ourselves making sure the burn victims all got Band-Aids
The entire Trump military/security team is wildly anti-Muslim, so the thought they are not
going to keep on killing Muslims all over the map is just plain silly.
Bannon is just plain dangerous. Here's a piece on his favorite books. Not surprisingly,
he hates Muslims. Also, he appears to imagine himself a brilliant strategist for the ages who
just happens to be the right man for 'The Fourth Turning', one of those ideas and books that
purports the existence of an historical pattern based on a cycle of generations, each generation
of every group of 4 having its own 'character', taken together claiming to explain a long cycle
of great crises and/or turning points of US history. He believes we are now in such a critical
period. It's one of those notions that has superficial appeal but quickly falls apart when
engaged critically:
TPP? Globalization? I see no evidence whatever that Trump has any intention of rolling back
US-dominated corporate globalization, rather, he wants to create trade flows that are even
more wildly skewed in favour of US financial/corporate power internationally even while effectively
transferring wealth from the periphery to core of Empire to support some minor job creation
– of course in the meantime granting outlandish tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy at
large.
I'm sorry, but Trump et al have played millions and millions of well-meaning Americans like
a fiddle.
The best description of the "Trump Situation" ever written was penned by 'Steve from Virginia'
author of the blog Economic Undertow:
One word that describes our precious country is incompetence. We have gone from being
the 'we-can-do-it' nation that put a man on the Moon to the 'hire a Mexican to do it' nation
that cannot find its ass with both hands. The fact of our dysfunction and the country's reliance
on migrant labor are what gives form to the efforts of Donald Trump. Yet he acts against himself:
he is the lazy-man of American politics who requires others to do his heavy lifting. This does
not mean physical labor but instead the struggle to become clear in the mind, to craft out
of disparate- and contradictory elements a policy outline or philosophy of governing. This
is never attempted, it is too difficult, instead there is the recycling of old, bankrupt memes.
The candidate's absence of effort leaves a residue of personality: Trump is a blank page upon
which others paint in the sketch, an actor who aims to meet (diminished) public expectations
and nothing more, sound and fury significant of nothing in particular.
I'm surprised no one seems to see a serious side to the reporting of Trump's antics. Is
it not important to keep hammering home that the man is unhinged and that this is something
pulling at the social frabric, something crying out to be dealt with? I seriously doubt that
we'll be able to address the "real issues" adequately until we find ways come to terms with
him not as a buffoon but as a deeply flawed human being.
Another false note–"Muslim is not a race." True, but being Jewish is not a racial characteristic
and yet it is obvious that antisemitism is very similar to racism in its irrationality and
hatred. Antisemites a hundred years ago would in some cases point to radicals who were Jewish
as their excuse, just as Islamophobes would point to Islamic extremism as theirs. Racists I
grew around would point to Idi Amin's Uganda ( yes, I am old) and other African countries with
horrible human rights records as proof that American blacks should be grateful to be here.
This "Islam is not a race" is mainly a tiresome distraction used by bigots and not a prelude
to a deeper discussion on the wide varieties of human bigotries. Bigots can use almost any
category they wish and concoct pseudo- rational propositions to buttress their hatred. We even
have lefties hating blue collar white males as a group for Trump support. We don't have to
join the people who use nitpicking phrases not to analyze, but to justify their hatreds. I
don't think the writer intends to do this, but he is using a standard Muslim blame cannon phrase.
After all this, I actually liked the rest of this piece, but that part was nails on a chalkboard
to me. I am glad the liberal mainstream is siding with Muslims against Trump. There are some
liberals ( Maher, Sam Harris etc..) who have been pushing a Muslim bashing agenda. And yes,
as usual the mainstream which is so solicitous of Muslim rights cared little when Obama bombed
Muslim countries. But I would rather that liberals be right if hypocritical then consistently
wrong.
You forgot to mention Zionist racism directed toward Palestinians. An equally equivalent
contemporary application of the term
On the subject of Trump i believe his executive order is directed toward travelers from
seven countries that the previous Potus identified in an anti-terrorist executive order.
If I have it correctly, Neither Trump or BHO e orders are directed against muslims or any other
religion for thats matter.
I agree with you on Zionist racism towards Palestinians.
On the deep path on the definition of racism, it depends. Given the prevalence of Islamophobia
in the US, some of it on the left ( including the kneejerk supporters of Israel), I don't think
it is helpful to use the "Islam is not a race" phrase as some sort of rebuttal. Islamophobia
is a form of bigotry– whether one wants to nitpick about exactly what form should depend on
the circumstances.
I do not believe in the corruption of language. Confucius said that the beginning of wisdom
is to call things by their proper names.
Are you by the same sloppy logic going to cal bias against women and gays "racism"?
Islamophobia is indeed not racist. Arabs, many American and African blacks, Persians (who
are not Arabians) and Indonesians among others are followers of Islam.
We already have perfectly good works, like "bigotry," "bias," and "discrimination".
I probably shouldn't have said anything, since the original poster clearly isn't a bigot,
but it set me off because in most cases this "Islam is not a race" phrase is used by Islamophibes
and they of course do not follow up by pointing out that it is a form of bigotry, like antisemitism.
If the poster here only means we should call it bigotry and not racism, I agree.
But that meme is used a lot and usually by Islamophobes who won't cop to being bigots either.
They aren't trying to have a deep conversation about different forms of bigotry. They are trying
to argue that it is rational to fear Muslims because Islam is, in their view, an inherently
evil ideology. But in practice Islamophobes are not rational or necessarily even consistent.
That's why I wrote my comment, pointing out that bigotry in any form is generally not some
carefully thought out logical train of thought, but some pseudo- rational set of propositions
often garbled together. This is why a Sikh can get beaten up by Islamophobes. It is also why
antisemites are often so confused about whether they hate Jews as a religion, as an alleged
race, or as some group of scary communist bankers. It's not like racism itself is usually based
on a clear understanding of biology.
So if we are going to push back on Islamophobia as racism, it should be so people see it
as like antisemitism, which is what it most closely resembles.
I have written enough today, so I am going to stop.
The reality is language evolves, often for the worse making clarity of message a casualty,
unless a tedious definition of terms is invoked which can easily end up being a form of deflection
from the original point.. ..
File under :Liberal/Conservative/Neoliberal/Progressive. I find all these Identity Labels can
be very loosely applied for reasons other than clarity.
In the case of the word Race, it is, some would correctly contend, archaic terminology while
simultaneously being convenient shorthand for "red meat" identity invectives.
Muslim isn't a race. If the ban had been about Arabs not being allowed in you'd have a point.
However, a person from Indonesia is allowed in and that country is almost entirely Muslim.
Plus, complaining about the US exercising boarder control is ridiculous. That is one the
jobs of a nation. No one bat an eye when Japan stated we're not allowing anyone in wrt to any
refugee problem. Yet when any Western nation does it, the sky falls and the charges of bigotry
come out.
People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here. Yemen, for instance, is bombed by the US and much more heavily by the Saudis
with our help and keeping refugees from Yemen out is an extreme form of ugly Americanism. If
we don't want the refugees, then we should stop causing or contributing to the chaos and death
in the countries which produce the refugees.
>People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here.
And where are these rights enumerated? I don't recognize "moral rights" beyond those associated
with copyright (and I am not particularly fond of those, either).
So the fact that we are bombing civilians and helping the Saudis plunge Yemen into a famine
is something you don't question, just the right of our victims to come here?
The legacy of Obama's incompetence in foreign policy does not obligate American citizens
to accept - or to foist upon their posterity - changes in the demographic make-up of our populace.
I'm still interested in learning where you discovered this moral right to move here
In other words, morality is a matter of preference and your number one moral value in this
context is keeping out refugees, people who suffer precisely because of our foreign policy.
Demographic balance is somewhere near the top of your own personal list of flavors. Anyway,
my notion of moral right involves the crazy idea that if you help destroy a country you have
moral obligations to the victims.
And by the way, Trump is likely to escalate our support for the Saudi war on Yemen.
LOL it certainly was a matter of preference for our recently departed Drone-Bomber-In-Chief,
and for all of the people who (thought/think) he was a really moral and upstanding kind of
guy. Just like our former Secretary of State, who threatened to cut off Sweden if they didn't
accept Monsanto poison.
"You're black!" said the pot to the kettle
"People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here."
Bullsht.
The US does have the moral obligation not to bomb countries that have not attacked the US and
in that case only in a "just war" context if at all
Meaningless. The US frequently bombs innocent people or helps others like the Saudis or
the Israelis do so. You say it is wrong, as do I, but apparently there are no consequences
allowed in your moral universe which might inconvenience us. We really have no moral obligations
at all– we can bomb people and if the survivors wish to come here to escape then we have the
right to keep them out according to you. All this boils down to is that we have the strongest
military. Your views regarding whether we should bomb someone are nothing more than your own
idiosyncratic preference and that is using your own standard. The people who control the military
want to use it to bomb other countries, so they do. Might makes Right.
I read it. So what? If we go ahead and bomb countries anyway, creating refugees, we have
no obligation to help them. It is like saying that it was wrong for some Wall Street guys to
steal people's money, but if they do, they have no obligation to give it back.
The US does bomb countries, so your flat earth analogy doesn't really work here. We aren't
discussing hypotheticals. There are real refugees from real policies and Trump is likely to
continue them or make them worse. We are directly responsible for the misery of vast numbers
of people and the numbers are likely to grow. Set aside the internet squabble we are having,
because you are so wrapped up in it you are losing touch with what we are arguing about.
Anyway, as I just wrote upthread, I have written enough.
"Anyway, as I just wrote upthread, I have written enough."
That we'll agree on. Maybe another day you can elucidate on why you bother writing when
you could find an airbase and stand on the runway, to stop the bombing.
No they don't have that right. It falls under "that's your problem".
Now, as harsh as that is I think from a humanitarian view and basic decency another nation
should show some compassion and allow them succor. However, nations and the people of those
nations are under no obligation to do so.
Moral rights are meaningless. And yes, I do agree that another nation shouldn't create the
refugees to begin with. As I find war to be a tool that is to be used as last resort. What
has been occurring in the mid-East has been so far from a last resort that I can't even come
up with a decent metaphor or simile.
But that still doesn't change the fact that people do not have the right to enter another
nation if the nation decides to say "No".
So if we go ahead and bomb Yemen or help the Saudis bomb Yemen, it really doesn't matter
at all. We are responsible for war crimes, but we have zero obligation to help the victims.
You switch back and forth between talk of morality and the law of the strongest. You say
we shouldn't bomb other countries for no good reason, but that is as much a meaningless platitude
as you say moral rights are in general. Basically you find it distasteful that we bomb other
countries, but what really exercises you is the possibility that some refugees might come here.
That will not stand.
The Athenians had no good reason to suppose that the Gods would not favor them.
There was nothing in their laws or beliefs to suggest otherwise.
Similarly, there is nothing in our laws that requires us to accept population transfers
because this or that President drops bombs in a far away country on people of whom we know
nothing.
Anon is correct. We can be obligated to bomb other countries by treaty. For instance, we
bombed France to oust the Nazis as a result of treaty obligations. It is also correct to say
that the US has been flagrantly ignoring what were considered to be international norms (pretty
much no one notices here, but Russia has been making a stink on a regular basis in the UN).
Any day since 1/20, you could look at the front page of WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc., and see op-eds
about how Trump is very very non-professional, sullying the good name of the office of the
President. Denigrating the institution and the very very serious role it plays in American
society, nay, the world! And yet the same front page will also cover, in-detail, whatever halfbaked
Trump tweet or Spicer's performance-art-as-press-conference has been served up that day. They
recognize that it's become a farce, but like someone who can't stop poking the tooth that hurts,
they present the farce as being very very important news. The establishment press has become
too enamored of the pomp and circumstance, the ceremonial of the White House media operation
and their visible, although largely pointless, role in the whole thing. They're too scared
of giving that up, lest they lose prominence or, le horror, have to do real reporting. So the
Washington press corp prop up their end of the ceremony in the vain hopes of a return to the
way things were, in denial of how their function is quickly becoming redundant. If all they're
going to do is talk about Trump's latest tweet, we might as well just stop reading their sites
and just read his tweets ourselves. Social media can just give us the press releases directly,
we don't need the press to act as town criers, screeching out Trump's decree in the town squares.
"Emerson College study found that the American public trusts Trump more than the media.
"
The WaPo's attempt to turn readers away from great sites like NC with their "fake news"
story has backfired spectacularly. Thanks to NC and others furious initial pushback, including
well crafted letters from NC's atty and the recipients responses published on NC, the term
"fake news" has become a joke in the court of public opinion. It's become a subject for comedy
skits. This is no small thing. Actually, it's a pretty big thing. McCarthist witch hunts live
and die in the court of public opinion, imo. See: Joseph Welch, "Have you no sense of decency
sir?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1eA5bUzVjA
And with that exchange the court of public opinion turned against McCarthy and the witch
hunt. Now where was I going with this ?
I was a census worker in 2010, and the forms didn't include Hispanic/Latino as a race; rather,
it was put as a separate identity category with sub-answers for specific country of ancestral
origin. However, 9 times out of 10 Hispanic responds would have me put "Hispanic" in the write-in
box for the "Other" race option (the other 10% would have me write-in their ancestral country).
The smarties with the degrees can say it's not a race, but if the people say that's their race,
who are we to say otherwise?
Ask Rachel Dolezal. Or perhaps Elizabeth Warren, an undocumented Native American (i.e.,
Indian). And yes, Pew Research would agree that folks who consider themselves to be Latino
consider Latino to be a race. But most are Native American.
But not anyone can be recognized as Native American in the USA unless they are on a tribal
register, which is odd, as the USG seems to subject Native American citizens to a higher level
of proof than Native Americans from south of the border.
" . But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is.
We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent
people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever
the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday
destination." .
Dear Raul,
Yes, the media creates distortions in our perceptions. Yes, the orange one plays that terrain
like a pro. Yes the British MP is hypocritical. I am with you there.
"We are the problem." This kind of reasoning may be correct on a cosmic scale but it always
seems to run to one of two conclusions. 1) Become a Buddhist and try to improve yourself. 2)
Humans are too dumb to survive; wait until nature takes its course and humans kill themselves
off playing Russian Roulette.
I am not sure what your are recommending here. Do we let the orange sacred clown run this
imperialist project into the ground? (To be replaced by what?) Or in opposing Trump do we clarify
what we do want = i.e. a government that does not torture, a government that does not protect
gotcha game mortgage lenders, a government that does not arm the world, a government that does
not subsidize old suicidal fossil fuels, a government that is not run by a hysterical 3 AM
tweeting 16 year old Marie Antoinette, your issue here .
I don't know the answer here. The orange bull in the china shop is useful in so far as he
reveals certain truths = ex: waterboarding is torture, congressmen are for sale, America has
killed a lot of people, etc. If he stops the NeoCon project of invading other countries he
might even be a benefit to world peace. But he's also likely to get people killed with his
impulsive decisions and his ginning up the rubes.
What this really tells you is to what extent the political systems in the US and the
UK, along with the media that serve them, have turned into a massive void, a vortex, a black
hole from which any reflection, criticism or self-awareness can no longer escape. By endlessly
and relentlessly pointing to someone, anyone, outside of their own circle of 'righteousness'
and political correctness, they have all managed to implant one view of reality in their
voters and viewers, while at the same time engaging in the very behavior they accuse the
people of that they point to. For profit.
On a recent interview with Donald Trump, Bill O'Reilly stated in regards to Vladimir Putin
"But he's a killer". Donald Trump responds with a truth rarely heard in the media today, "There
are a lot of killers. Do you think our country is so innocent?"
I may not be a fan of Donald Trumps, but, how can we put down that level of honesty? Imagine
if we actually had an honest nationwide discussion on what we are doing in the rest of the
world .
"... "Both sides demonstrated a mood for active, joint work on stabilizing and developing Russian-American cooperation," the Kremlin said in a statement, saying Putin and Trump had agreed to work on finding a possible time and place for a meeting. ..."
"... The Kremlin said the US President asked his Russian counterpart "to wish the Russian people happiness and prosperity" on his behalf, adding Americans "have warm feelings towards Russia and its citizens." Putin said the feeling was "mutual," stressing that historically, the Russians and the Americans were close allies on more than one occasion. ..."
"... Putin said "for over two centuries Russia has supported the United States, was its ally during the two world wars, and now sees the United States as a major partner in fighting international terrorism." ..."
"... Moscow, for its part, has repeatedly suggested fostering closer cooperation between the Russian and US Air Forces in Syria, but blamed the previous Obama administration for failing to adequately respond to its entreaties. Relations between the two countries have been marred in recent years over various issues, including divisions on the Syrian crisis and allegations of Russian meddling into the US elections in November of 2016. US sanctions against Russia - imposed over the crisis in Ukraine - was one of the issues expected to be on the agenda of the Trump-Putin exchange. However, the issue was not mentioned in the Kremlin's statement summarizing the conversation. ..."
"... Russia has been cautious about the prospects for a potential "reset" with the US under the new administration. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said the country has no "naive expectations" and is under no "illusions." ..."
Putin, Trump, in 'Positive' Call, Say
Want to
Cooperate in Syria: Kremlin
https://nyti.ms/2jIzuKa
NYT - REUTERS - January 28, 2017
MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald
Trump said in a "positive" phone call on Saturday they favored their two countries cooperating in
Syria to defeat Islamic State, the Kremlin said in a statement.
In an eagerly awaited phone call, the first since Trump's inauguration, the two men stressed the
importance of restoring economic ties between the two countries and of stabilizing relations, the
Kremlin said.
U.S.-Russia relations had hit a post-Cold War low under Barack Obama and Trump has made clear
he wants a rapprochement with Moscow if he can get along with Putin.
"Both sides demonstrated a mood for active, joint work on stabilizing and developing Russian-American
cooperation," the Kremlin said in a statement, saying Putin and Trump had agreed to work on finding
a possible time and place for a meeting.
There was no mention in the statement that the possibility of Trump easing sanctions on Moscow
imposed over the Ukraine conflict had been mentioned, a subject widely expected to be raised.
The Kremlin said Trump and Putin had agreed to establish "partner-like cooperation" when it came
to global issues such as Ukraine, Iran's nuclear program, tensions on the Korean peninsula and the
Israeli-Arab conflict.
Trump's stance on Russia has been under intense scrutiny from critics who say he was elected with
help from Russian intelligence, an allegation he denies. His detractors have also accused him of
being too eager to make an ally of Putin.
For Putin, an easing of Western sanctions would be a major coup ahead of next year's presidential
election as it would help the economy recover.
In their first phone conversation that lasted nearly an
hour, Russian President Vladimir Putin and the new US
President Donald Trump have outlined their intent to
cooperate on issues ranging from defeating Islamic State to
mending bilateral economic ties.
"Both sides expressed their readiness to make active joint
efforts to stabilize and develop Russia-US cooperation on a
constructive, equitable and mutually beneficial basis," as
well as "build up partner cooperation" on a wide range of
international issues, according to a Kremlin statement
following their discussion.
The White House said that the "positive" conversation was
"a significant start to improving the relationship between
the United States and Russia that is in need of repair."
"Both President Trump and President Putin are hopeful that
after today's call the two sides can move quickly to tackle
terrorism and other important issues of mutual concern," the
White House statement added.
After speaking with Chancellor Merkel for 45 minutes
@POTUS is now onto his 3rd of 5 head of government calls,
speaking w Russian Pres Putin pic.twitter.com/RPAWIgcO2C
- Sean Spicer (@PressSec) January 28, 2017Q
"The Presidents have spoken in favor of establishing a
real coordination between the US and Russian actions in order
to defeat ISIS and other terrorist organizations in Syria,"
the Kremlin statement said.
The two leaders also discussed the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict as well as Iran's nuclear program. "Major aspects of
the Ukrainian crisis have been also touched upon," the
Kremlin announced.
The leaders of Russia and the US have noted a need to
restore economic ties "to stimulate" further development of
the relationship between the nations. Putin and Trump also
agreed to initiate a process to "work out possible dates and
venue of their personal meeting."
Telephone conversation with US President Donald Trump
https://t.co/mjp9Tta1sE
- President of Russia (@KremlinRussia_E) 28 января 2017 г.Q
During the conversation the Presidents also expressed their
desire to "maintain regular personal contacts," the Kremlin
statement said.
The Kremlin said the US President asked his Russian
counterpart "to wish the Russian people happiness and
prosperity" on his behalf, adding Americans "have warm
feelings towards Russia and its citizens." Putin said the
feeling was "mutual," stressing that historically, the
Russians and the Americans were close allies on more than one
occasion.
Putin said "for over two centuries Russia has supported
the United States, was its ally during the two world wars,
and now sees the United States as a major partner in fighting
international terrorism."
On Friday, speaking at a joint briefing with British Prime
Minister Theresa May, Trump said he hoped he would have a
"fantastic relationship" with Russia's president, but
understands that might not happen. Trump has said previously
that he would welcome Moscow's involvement in a joint effort
to battle Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).
"I don't know Putin, but if we can get along with
Russia that's a great thing. It's good for Russia; it's
good for us; we go out together and knock the hell out of
ISIS, because that's a real sickness," he said in an
interview with Fox News.
Moscow, for its part, has repeatedly suggested fostering
closer cooperation between the Russian and US Air Forces in
Syria, but blamed the previous Obama administration for
failing to adequately respond to its entreaties. Relations
between the two countries have been marred in recent years
over various issues, including divisions on the Syrian crisis
and allegations of Russian meddling into the US elections in
November of 2016. US sanctions against Russia - imposed over
the crisis in Ukraine - was one of the issues expected to be
on the agenda of the Trump-Putin exchange. However, the issue
was not mentioned in the Kremlin's statement summarizing the
conversation.
Citing an unnamed source in the White House, a researcher
at the Atlantic Council analytical center, Fabrice Pothier,
wrote in a Twitter post on Thursday that the Trump
administration "has an executive order ready" to lift the
restrictions on Moscow, but Trump said on Friday that it is
"very early to be talking about that."
However, earlier in January, Trump said that he would
consider lifting restrictions if Moscow cooperates with
Washington on certain issues, such as nuclear arms reduction.
"They have sanctions on Russia - let's see if we can make
some good deals with Russia. For one thing, I think nuclear
weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially,
that's part of it," Trump was quoted as saying by the Times.
Trump also said in one of his Tweets that "having a good
relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing,"
warning only "fools" would think otherwise. However, several
US Senators proposed a bill last week that would make it
impossible for the US President to lift restrictions without
congressional approval.
Russia has been cautious about the prospects for a
potential "reset" with the US under the new administration.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said the country has no
"naive expectations" and is under no "illusions."
"... Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump? ..."
"... For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful. ..."
"... Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued. ..."
In any case, a link to the following story in Hamburg's ridiculously sober-sided Die Zeit came
over the transom:
So schockiert von Trump wie alle anderen ("So shocked by Trump like everyone else"). The reporter
is Alexej Kowaljow
, a Russian journalist based in Moscow. Before anyone goes "ZOMG! The dude is Russian
!", everything Kowaljow writes is based on open sources or common-sense information presumably
available to citizens of any nation. The bottom line for me is that if the world is coming to believe
that Americans are idiots, it's not necessarily because Americans elected Trump as President.
I'm going to lay out two claims and two questions from Kowaljow's piece. In each case, I'll quote
the conventional, Steele and intelligence community-derived wisdom in our famously free press, and
then I'll quote Kowaljow. I think Kowaljow wins each time. Easily. I don't think Google Translate
handles irony well, but I sense that Kowaljow is deploying it freely.
(1) Trump's Supposed Business Dealings in Russia Are Commercial Puffery
Here's
the
section on Russia in Time's article on Trump's business dealings; it's representative. I'm going
to quote it all so you can savor it. Read it carefully.
Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map
Russia
"For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump
tweeted
in July, one day before he called on the country to "find" a batch of emails deleted from
Hillary Clinton's private server. Nonetheless, Russia's extraordinary meddling in the 2016 U.S.
election-a declassified report released by U.S. intelligence agencies in January disclosed that
intercepted conversations captured senior Russian officials celebrating Trump's win-as well as
Trump's complimentary remarks about Russian President have stirred widespread questions about
the President-elect's pursuit of closer ties with Moscow. Several members of Trump's inner circle
have business links to Russia, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who
consulted for pro-Russia politicians in the Ukraine. Former foreign policy adviser Carter
Page worked in Russia and
maintains ties there.
During the presidential transition, former Georgia Congressman and Trump campaign surrogate
Jack Kingston
told a gathering of businessmen in Moscow that the President-elect could lift U.S. sanctions.
According to his own son, Trump has long relied on Russian customers as a source of income. "Russians
make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr.
told a Manhattan real estate conference in 2008 , according to an account posted on the website
of trade publication eTurboNews. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
Back to map .
Read that again, if you can stand it. Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump?
Do you see the name of any businessperson who closed a deal with Trump? Do you, in fact, see any
reporting at all? At most, you see commercial puffery by Trump the Younger: "Russians [in Russia?]
make up a pretty [qualifier] disproportionate [whatever that means] cross-section [whatever that
means] of a lot of [qualifier] our assets."
Now Kowaljow (via Google Translate, so forgive any solecisms):
For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years
of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump
boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds
of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful.
Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire
Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued.
Because think about it: Trump puts his name on stuff . Towers in Manhattan, hotels, casinos,
golf courses, steaks. Anything in Russia with Trump's name on it? Besides the failed vodka venture?
No? Case closed, then.
(2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy
Five reasons intel community believes Russia interfered in election
The attacks dovetailed with other Russian disinformation campaigns
The report covers more than just the hacking effort. It also contains a detailed list account
of information warfare against the United States from Russia through other means.
Political party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the report lists as a "pro-Kremlin proxy,"
said before the election that, if Trump won, Russia would 'drink champagne' to celebrate their
new ability to advance in Syria and Ukraine.
Now Kowaljow:
The report of the American intelligence services on the Russian interference in the US elections,
published at the beginning of January, was notoriously neglected by Russians, because the name
of Vladimir Zhirinovsky was mentioned among the "propaganda activities of Russia", which had announced
that in the event of an election victory of Trump champagne to want to drink.
Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky
– ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at
the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party
is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing
populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the
US by means of "gravitational weapons".
If, therefore, the Kremlin had indeed had the treacherous plan of helping Trump to power, it
would scarcely have been made known about Zhirinovsky.
The American equivalent would be . Give me a moment to think of an American politician who's both
so delusional and such a laughingstock that no American President could possibly
consider using them as a proxy in a devilishly complex informational warfare campaign Sara
Palin? Anthony Weiner? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Na ga happen.
And now to the two questions.
(3) Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele?
Kowaljow:
But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions.
The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of
the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret
service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to
be discredited appears strange.
Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible,
you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational,
and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st
and 20th centuries, suborning the President of the United States, and whose intelligence agencies
are (3) leakly like a sieve. Does that make sense? (Of course, the devilish Russkis could have fed
Steele bad data, knowing he'd then feed it to the American intelligence agencies, who would lap it
up, but that's another narrative.)
(4) How Do You Compromise the Uncompromisable?
Funny how suddenly the word kompromat was everywhere, wasn't it? So sophisticated. Everybody
loves to learn a new word! Regarding the "Golden Showers" - more sophistication! - Kowaljow writes:
But even if such a compromise should exist, what sense should it have, since the most piquant
details have long been publicly discussed in public, and had no effect on the votes of the elected
president? Like all the other scandals trumps, which passed through the election campaign, they
also remained unresolved, including those who were concerned about sex.
This also includes what is known as a compromise, compromising material, that is, video shots
of the unsightly nature, which can destroy both the political career and the life of a person.
The word Kompromat shines today – as in the past Perestroika – in all headlines; It was not invented
in Russia, of course. But in Russia in the Yeltsin era, when the great clans in the power gave
bitter fights and intensively used the media, works of this kind have ended more than just a brilliant
career. General Prosecutor Jurij Skuratov was dismissed after a video had been shown in the country-wide
television channels: There, a person "who looks like the prosecutor's office" had sex with two
prostitutes.
Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever
wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab
her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding
to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game,
you don't care about the niceties.
Conclusion
It would be nice, wouldn't it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump
transition , instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist
Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:
1) The content and impact of Trump's Executive Orders.
2) Ditto, regulations.
3) Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?
4) Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them. Charters,
for example.
5) Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.
6) The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.
7) Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump's implementation
And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which
Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich
with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy
of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days.
Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were
all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility
voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing
unless, of course, you're the sort of sleaze merchant who
downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it's all about the clicks.
As Stephen Cohen noted Kremlin bating was adopted by Hillary campaign -- they wanted to fight
again Trump and Putin, instead Trump and Pence. That did not them any good.
Notable quotes:
"... 2016 was the year of collapse of western mainstream media. No decent people must now on trust on our western mainstream media. ..."
"... You have to dig the truth from independent sources. I found this thing much before Iraq War. Even Vietnam War was run by similar lies of media and ruling class (Tonkin Gulf plot). ..."
Whether you have a favorable or unfavorable view of Putin, or of Russia in general, it is
people like Stephen Cohen - who has studied Russia all his life and actually knows what he's
talking about - to whom you should listen. Compared to the media men who have Cohen on their
shows, he is like an adult talking to children.
I hate modern football
As a Finn i have been forced to learn the history of Russia in perspective of Finland (and
Sweden).
And my conclusion has become more stable that Finland is for Russia nothing more than
buffer: a country causing no problems but lots of good things IF THERE ARE NO MILITARY FORCES
OF ENEMY GREAT POWER.
After that basic geopolitical fact it's clear why Finland is not NATO country and hope will
never come even there are lots of Finnish media pundits suggesting it.
Pfirtzer -> I hate modern football
Well older people have still the idea America liberated them and other uninformed people
find Russia to bo the enemy because of MH17 plain that was shot down above Ukraine.
But in fairness there are many dutch people who want to have a good relation with Russia
and having trade with Russia, because it's good to trade, and talk , war is just good for the
Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Bushes and co
Look a booklet https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html War Is a Racket
google it, your eyes will open what is going on in the world!
Jason Roggasch
No proof no facts JUST assertions from one of the most destructive forces the world has
ever known THE CIA
Patricia Leary
"It's CLEAR that Russia is meddling in our election" Dude! Clarity without ANY facts? Zero
evidence? Seriously??
Here's what IS crystal clear and is backed by COPIOUS undisputed evidence, and nary a word
from corporate neocon Obama or his MSM lapdogs - Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the
Superdelegates criminal, corrupt election fraud, defiling our election integrity, during the
primaries, backed by huge corporate interests to ensure that an anti-corporatist like Bernie
Sanders, DID NOT gain the nomination.
Had Sanders been nominated, he would have won the presidency hands down! They knew that!
The corporate billionaires ruling the world COULD NOT and WOULD NOT HAVE THAT! Yes. There was
meddling but it wasn't a foreign entity. It was the United States of Corporations!
Susan Joy Worker
why should anyone believe Clinton and the Globalist-controlled media? They lie about
everything.
The Leaks have revealed extensive crimes - we now need a Full investigation of ALL of those
crimes.
Then Mrs Clinton can explain herself at a fair trial. If that leads to jail or execute, so
be it.
Let us move the discussion on to her crimes, and who conspired with her in those crimes.
I am tired of the distractions
Alex Trefall
As a Polish national I have no great love for Russia. But in recent years I recognized that
what I consider "my version of history" may not be the same for someone else.
Meaning: history is not facts but rather its mostly political fiction mixed with some
facts. I don't claim to know who has the proverbial answer, or who is right.
All I see is that in the last 15 years, if not longer it's the US that invaded more
countries and caused countless deaths in the name of their own self interest ( democracy -
freedom/slavery to consume whatever we like in whatever quantity ).
Trying to blame Russia for everything just seems pathetic regardless how good or bad Putin
really is.
B M
USA governments have been in the pocket of the Globalist Arms Manufacturers because it is
worth trillions of dollars to them.Its all about $$$$$$.People are expendable.
We now have a chance for peace but Trump is in danger for attempting to break this evil
establishment.
ameighable
Julian Assange has said that the leaks were not from state operatives and definitely not
Russsia. A former UK ambassador says that he personally few to DC to personally receive the
WikiLeaks material. Julian Assange suggested in an interview with Dutch TV that Seth Rich, a
DNC employee who was murdered not long after the leaks, was the leaker.
Furthermore, the ambassador said that all published information was legally obtained by
disgruntled insiders.
Vlasta Molak
There are 4 totalitarian, supremacist, apartheid and imperialistic IDEOLOGIES, which had
threatened advances of the Western civilization: Communism, Fascism, Nazism and Islam, of
which Islam is the most current and dangerous, as it is worst than Nazism. Communism fell
under its own weight, Fascism and Nazism were defeated in WWII (although it exists in small
enclaves) but Islam is invading the West with the help of treasonous Western politicians, such
as b. Hussein Obama, Angela Merkel, EC and even Pope.
Trump recognizes this and his choice for Secretary of State, Rex Tillleson is a great one, as
Mr. Tillerson is a problem solver, just as Trump is, who listens to everybody, including those
who opposed him and defamed him. this is a characteristic of a GREAT leader. Putin has a PhD
in Economics who lived in Dresden while working for KGB and Putin is aware of the danger of
Islam to Western civilization.
Vlasta Molak
Wahbis RULE Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam in Mecca and therefore are just like the war
lord Mohamed role models for ALL Muslim men who have to come for Hajj at least once in a
lifetime. It is the IDEOLOGY of Islam that is the ROOT cause of terrorism and violence
nowadays.
444suse
2016 was the year of collapse of western mainstream media. No decent people must now on
trust on our western mainstream media.
You have to dig the truth from independent sources. I found this thing much before Iraq
War. Even Vietnam War was run by similar lies of media and ruling class (Tonkin Gulf plot).
Brian on NYT: "There are other points of view, including the point of view of Donald Trump,
that do get on their pages."
LOL, This made me laugh aloud. "On their pages" - to be misreported and ridiculed. The NY
Times is definitely part of the problem and is a key part of the spin machine. I was happy to
hear that they will let enough employees go to free up 8 floors. May the shrinking continue in
2017. It will save the "good guys" from nuking the place and all who work there.
"... Oops. Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the U.S. intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with "high confidence" – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds. ..."
"... "the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked ..."
"... He offered a similarly designed comment at a Dec. 16, 2016 press conference when he said: "based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC. the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks." ..."
"... Obama does not bridge the gap because to do so would represent a bald-faced lie, which some honest intelligence officer might call him on. So, he simply presents the two sides of the chasm – implies a connection – but leaves it to the listener to make the leap. ..."
"... Former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of Assange, has made clear that the two separate batches of Democratic emails – one from the DNC and the other from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta – also were leaks from insiders, not hacks from outsiders. ..."
"... "In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. This undermines the stream of completely evidence-free nonsense that has been emerging from the US intelligence services this last two months, in which a series of suppositions have been strung together to make unfounded assertions that have been repeated again and again in the mainstream media. ..."
"... "Most crucially of all Obama refers to 'The DNC emails that were leaked.' Note 'leaked' and not 'hacked.' I have been repeating that this was a leak, not a hack, until I am blue in the face. William Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, has asserted that were it a hack the NSA would be able to give the precise details down to the second it occurred, and it is plain from the reports released they have no such information. Yet the media has persisted with this nonsense 'Russian hacking' story." ..."
"... For whatever reason Obama finally decided to steer clear of the moronic "Russia Connection" BS. At least for the final record. ..."
"... Very true. The stories of risks from other great powers are based upon absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, and the subsidy of wars of aggression for Israel and Saudi Arabia is insanity and corruption to the point of treason. The US has no interest in war at all except bribery from MIC/Israel/KSA. The warmongers should all be in Club Fed Guantanamo for good. ..."
"... Perjury .Any president of the USA is continuously under oath from day one The only thing is USA citizens are cowards. They allow the elite money changers to sway the law ..."
"... The oath thing is effectively a Hitlerian Big Lie. Presidents (and most people, good and bad) lie as naturally as breathing. ..."
"... In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. ..."
"... Obama has used his speaking skills to take us all down the long garden path, beginning as a campaigner who was apparently anti-war and becoming one of the worst of the pro-war presidents. He can claim he never promised he was anti-war during his 2008 campaign because is is "so rhetorically eloquent at . obfuscation" and he very carefully creates "his oratorical constructs." ..."
"... Well, Donald Trump is our president. It is hard to imagine how he will rid the world of the Cold War and it's hard to miss his shift from talking about it directly to the war against Muslim extremism. While we hope it would, working with Russia on ISIS does not mean that the taunting by our Generals or by NATO will disappear. The President has bridled at the behavior of the CIA but will he be able to reduce its power. Ditto the military that he praises as all presidents do and speaks of making it even bigger. ..."
"... His positions on trade will run up against the power of investors who want to freely move their money where the profits are. Arguments like the second world war was a result of our protectionists policies after the Depression hit will surface and the public will be reminded that advanced countries simply don't behave the way he proposes. ..."
"... The choice of one word by Obama is not a strong argument, nor is there a case that "almost certainly" Russia hacked the DNC email, versus China or the US or a private hacker. The US certainly did so, as it has far greater resources and is known to have the ability. So the most likely government hacking source is a US agency like NSA. And the most likely source is the disaffected, resigned, and murdered DNC staffer Mr. Rich. ..."
"... The issue s/n/b "who" leaked "what", it s/b =>why, should information<= about "salaried, elected 527 actor [and appointee] activities" be allowed any privilege of privacy or secrecy. Obviously, those who need to be best informed in a democracy, about the activities and exploits of those in or near to power, are those furtherest from the seats of power, the members of the voting public. Privilege of secret or privacy belongs to those furtherest from the seats of power. Seat occupants possess no privilege or secret to any aspect of their activities and exploits. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton was not trusted. She was a weak candidate whose allegiance was to a tiny sliver of powerful wealthy people. everybody knew that. She cost herself the election. The argument her defenders are using trying to blame the Russians, the FBI, blah blah blah is that if only the truth could have been kept from the voters their candidate would have won. That is a very weak position and does not help their credibility. They play a dangerous game trying to inflame passions against Russia instead of cleaning their own house. ..."
"... Sorry folks, this smacks of W. Bush maintaining "we have no direct evidence that Osama Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11" fully knowing that the majority of Americans had already been successfully programmed to the contrary. The big admission Obama is lacking here is the admission that the whole "Putin hacked" scenario was scripted in the bowels of the American security state otherwise known as the fourth branch of our government. ..."
"... Thank Obama for "dispelling . . . obfuscation"? Obama called for a thorough investigation back in December then almost immediately made statements to the effect that "nothing much happens without Putin knowing it" and "the Russians are capable of doing this" (the essence of his remarks). Massaging the hysteria nicely, wasn't he? Now he states "conclusions are not conclusive." Once again here he is the spinmaster on his silver toe defending his ego. Too kind, Ray, much too kind and generous for this kind of behavior. ..."
"... The NYT will preserve it's reputation as the "toilet paper of record" a remarkably accurate quip from that, All American, Gerald Celente of Trends Research. ..."
"... The apocalyptic visions of George Orwell's warnings "Big Brother is Watching You," have now come to pass. Let us re-examine the classic works of that master of propaganda, Edward Bernays and his modern day student, Philip D. Zelikow. ..."
The hole in the U.S. intelligence community's "high confidence" about Russia "hacking" Democratic
emails has always been who gave the material to WikiLeaks, as President Obama admitted, notes ex-CIA
analyst Ray McGovern.
Oops. Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to
blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the
U.S. intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent
obfuscation – expressed with "high confidence" – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions
now are dispelling some of the clouds.
Does the Russian government hack, as many other governments do? Of course. Did it hack the emails
of the Democratic National Committee? Almost certainly, though it was likely not alone in doing so.
In the Internet age, hacking is the bread and butter of intelligence agencies. If Russian intelligence
did not do so, this would constitute gross misfeasance, especially since the DNC was such easy pickings
and the possibility of gaining important insights into the U.S. government was so high. But that
is not the question.
It was WikiLeaks that published the very damaging information, for example, on the DNC's dirty
tricks that marginalized Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensured that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
would win the Democratic nomination. What remains to be demonstrated is that it was "the Russians"
who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. And that is what the U.S. intelligence community doesn't know.
At President Obama's Jan. 18 press conference, he admitted as much: "the conclusions of the
intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks
was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked
." [Emphasis added}
It is necessary to carefully parse Obama's words since he prides himself in his oratorical constructs.
He offered a similarly designed comment at a Dec. 16, 2016 press conference when he said: "based
on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC. the information
was in the hands of WikiLeaks."
Note the disconnect between the confidence about hacking and the stark declarative sentence about
the information ending up at WikiLeaks. Obama does not bridge the gap because to do so would
represent a bald-faced lie, which some honest intelligence officer might call him on. So, he simply
presents the two sides of the chasm – implies a connection – but leaves it to the listener to make
the leap.
WikiLeaks Account
As I suggested
to RT viewers right after the last press conference, the reason WikiLeaks might have been "not
witting" could be that it was quite sure it was not a "conduit" for "hacking" by the Russians or
anyone else. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has stated that the Russian government was not the
source and it's significant that President Obama stopped short of contradicting him. It is also clear
that WikiLeaks, in the past, has obtained LEAKED information from U.S. whistleblowers, such as Chelsea
Manning.
Former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of Assange, has made clear that the
two separate batches of Democratic emails – one from the DNC and the other from Clinton campaign
chairman John Podesta – also were leaks from insiders, not hacks from outsiders.
After the Jan. 18 press conference - what Murray called the "Stunning Admission from Obama on
Wikileaks" - Murray wrote:
"In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that
they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. This undermines the stream of completely
evidence-free nonsense that has been emerging from the US intelligence services this last two months,
in which a series of suppositions have been strung together to make unfounded assertions that have
been repeated again and again in the mainstream media.
"Most crucially of all Obama refers to 'The DNC emails that were leaked.' Note 'leaked' and
not 'hacked.' I have been repeating that this was a leak, not a hack, until I am blue in the face.
William Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, has asserted that were it a hack the NSA would
be able to give the precise details down to the second it occurred, and it is plain from the reports
released they have no such information. Yet the media has persisted with this nonsense 'Russian hacking'
story."
So I suppose we should thank Barack Obama for dispelling at least some of the obfuscation at which
he is so rhetorically eloquent, while our lame "mainstream" media take steno and regurgitate
ad nauseam .
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for
a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity (VIPS).
Sally Snyder , January 20, 2017 at 6:57 pm
Here is an interesting look at an essay written by Barack Obama when he was a student at Columbia
University:
It is so ironic that he is now the only POTUS to serve his full term in a state of war, yet
another inconsistency in his persona.
Bob Van Noy , January 20, 2017 at 8:05 pm
Thanks for the link Sally Snyder. They can't be the same person. Can they?
Zachary Smith , January 20, 2017 at 7:33 pm
"So I suppose we should thank Barack Obama for dispelling at least some of the obfuscation
at which he is so rhetorically eloquent, while our lame "mainstream" media take steno and regurgitate
ad nauseam."
Not me. In my opinion Obama has been "playing nice" for his final few days and hours in the
hope citizens and historians will make that "leap" and conclude he was a nice guy at heart after
all.
The Moon of Alabama site had this viewpoint:
The DNC emails "that were leaked" – not "hacked" or "stolen" but "leaked".
One wonders if this is a parting shot is primarily aimed at the involved Intelligence Agencies
led by James Clapper and John Brennan. Or is dissing Hillary Clinton and her narrative the
main purpose?
That blogger could be right and I might be wrong. For whatever reason Obama finally decided
to steer clear of the moronic "Russia Connection" BS. At least for the final record.
William Binney was right. A leak, not a hacked was done to the DNC.
Bob Van Noy , January 20, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Thank you Ray McGovern and The VIPS for keeping us informed about this most important event.
It has the potential to expose much wrongdoing affecting our fragile democracy. Watching it being
"played out" in real time is a great asset of this remarkable site where truth and decent conversation
are carried out on a daily basis
backwardsevolution , January 20, 2017 at 7:51 pm
Ray McGovern – another great article! Keep up the good work. Can't wait to find out what Trump
says to the CIA tomorrow. Maybe Trump needs to take along Craig Murray.
Bob Van Noy , January 21, 2017 at 12:59 pm
backwardsevolution, please see my comment below about Craig Murray.
That would be awesome! It won't happen of course. But it would be awesome.
Dr. Ibrahim Soudy , January 20, 2017 at 8:37 pm
what i find truly fascinating is that nobody is giving any attention to the FACT that the DNC
cheated to make Hillary the nominee in the general elections!! That is not hacking or leaking,
it is CHEATING which should be treated accordingly ..even B.S. himself, should have raised
hell about that but he lined up like a sheep dog behind Hillary go figure
Joe Tedesky , January 21, 2017 at 6:03 pm
Ah Doctor now you are talking. The hacking, leaking , and anything else along those line keep
us from talking about the real problem. That problem being Hillary's cheating. Good that you brought
it up.
The question then, is, Did those fools kill two birds with one stone? Or did they flub twice
and have the contents of two eggs on each of their faces? They thought that they could count on
the foundation of the doctrinal system, and people's having been marinated in it's bullcrap, when
they tossed out the 'Putin did it line'. They did all the evil that Wikileaks revealed and only
added to it with that nonsense that much (most?) of the public now disbelieves.
I have not had the time to look into this the way I want to and I regret that. It's not just
that I haven't had the time to examine something important and interesting. I have been misled
by Craig Murray's own account, not intentionally I'm sure. Neverthless. I took from one of his
blog posts the idea that he met the leaker, full stop. Then, as I perused comments by others (Off
Guardian I believe), I realized that it wasn't that simple. Craig met someone acting as a courier
for the leaker or leakers, apparently. The difference is not unimportant. Craig can say that he
knows that the info that Wikileaks obtained here was not 'hacked', based on his having received
it from the leaker or his or her courier. That's fair. But if that's how it went down, then I
don't want to say that Murray 'met' the leaker. I wish people would be honest. It's important.
Yes, l know all about the other stuff. William Binney's explanations for why it wasn't a hack
etc.. That's all good. But it's not my focus here. I was misled and then I misled others and my
credibility could be impacted by something like this. If my efforts to educate others is important,
then that credibility problem is important.
bob , January 20, 2017 at 8:40 pm
It appears to me Barack and Hillary simply conspired to destroy Bernie's candidacy and populism.
It is and always forever shall be about cash.
Our military is an ocean of unaccounted, bloody cash. One Nation Under God. I can tell you
this.
I guarded B-52's, F-4 Phantoms, C-5 A's, the secret Black Sheep Squadron of C-130's with no
external insignias jammed with electronics to spy on European nations etcetera. No one in their
right mind can send these gigantic machines to bomb defenseless little girls who can't even see
them they fly so high and be sane. Toys for the insatiably insane. Absolute lunacy and we glorify
it because we're trained like rats.
Sam F , January 21, 2017 at 7:33 am
Very true. The stories of risks from other great powers are based upon absolutely nothing,
absolutely nothing, and the subsidy of wars of aggression for Israel and Saudi Arabia is insanity
and corruption to the point of treason. The US has no interest in war at all except bribery from
MIC/Israel/KSA. The warmongers should all be in Club Fed Guantanamo for good.
Aristotle warned of these tyrants over democracy, causing foreign wars to create fear and to
demand power as false protectors, and to accuse their opponents of disloyalty. Our Constitutional
Convention failed to protect the tools of democracy, mass media and elections, from the economic
concentrations that did not then exist. The US needs constitutional amendments to restrict funding
of mass media and elections to limited registered individual contributions, and to improve checks
and balances.
John , January 20, 2017 at 8:45 pm
Perjury .Any president of the USA is continuously under oath from day one The only thing
is USA citizens are cowards. They allow the elite money changers to sway the law
The oath thing is effectively a Hitlerian Big Lie. Presidents (and most people, good and
bad) lie as naturally as breathing.
Presidents' lies definitely do more damage than little people's lies, not to excuse any of
it. (I don't lie, big or white)
To get an idea how much of liar Barack Obama is (which was known early on; See the book "Hopeless
– Barack Obama And The Politics Of Illusion" edited by Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank) just
give Seymour Hersh's book "The Killing Of Osama bin Laden" a read.
The book is unbalanced, in that it's as much about Syria (and the lies told, and not told,
about that) as it is about bin Laden. But it's very good, although Hersh, who isn't as independent
of the establishment as some believe him to be, unfathomably believes that Obamacare was a plus
for Obama's legacy.
Bill , January 20, 2017 at 8:52 pm
So you're almost certain that the Russian government hacked the DNC? Based on what, a guess?
The whole story has had a bad smell to it from the beginning. Assumptions don't cut it, we need
proof.
Bill Bodden , January 20, 2017 at 10:07 pm
In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits
that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material.
If "they" had practiced a daily habit of reading Consortium News "they" would have known how
Wikileaks got the information.
Call A Spade , January 21, 2017 at 4:11 am
No US citizen would have taken that into account they are emotive they do not vote on evidence
otherwise there would have been two different choices.
Tom , January 20, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Eh idk about this. There have been reports that the intel community already identified the
russians who gave wikileaks the data. It just hasnt been disclosed in the unclassified reports.
And what obama said there has to be looked at carefully. I dont think he's disspelling the narrative,
i think he's just saying that Wikileaks might not have known they were being used by Russia as
a conduit and means of getting the data published. Who knows though
Charlie M. , January 20, 2017 at 11:11 pm
Bro. Ray, thank you for giving us clarity. We will need more of it. Keep up the Good Fight.
hi, the hack is easy to figure. mr. PODESTA used a soft easy password so that anyone could
hack it. he wanted people to find the clinton email with DEPLORABLES in it. so that it would go
viral. he regarded it as having racial tones & he was pissed off at hillary about it. sanders
voters were blacks gays & hispanics etc. OBAMA & all the democrats know this but they wont mention
it because it reflects on them. i-e therefor /ergo russia the scapegoat bogeyman.or the truth
would make them look foolish.–beware the TALENT ACT /circa january 2017 .
BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , January 21, 2017 at 1:34 am
Great piece, Ray. What I especially appreciated were your comments on Obama's understated great
skill in using language.
For example, you write:
"It is necessary to carefully parse Obama's words since he prides himself in his oratorical
constructs."
and later:
"the obfuscation at which he is so rhetorically eloquent."
Obama has used his speaking skills to take us all down the long garden path, beginning
as a campaigner who was apparently anti-war and becoming one of the worst of the pro-war presidents.
He can claim he never promised he was anti-war during his 2008 campaign because is is "so rhetorically
eloquent at . obfuscation" and he very carefully creates "his oratorical constructs."
Great job, Ray. Showing that Obama not only was screwing around with innuendo on the issue
of Russian hacking, but that Obama's been screwing around with our minds beginning with his statements
as a Senator and continuing right until his most recent statements as POTUS.
Joe , January 21, 2017 at 3:28 am
Thank god the election is over and it's time to change wall-hangings and furniture. Civilians
also get a change in themes that have preoccupied journalists, such as the Democrats' acute case
of McCarthyism.
But now that there is a Republican in the WH, what are you guys going to write about? It's
been getting a little old .
Call A Spade , January 21, 2017 at 4:05 am
How would the 2017 Australia of the year possibly be involved isn't he under house arrest in
London?
Herman , January 21, 2017 at 4:07 am
Well, Donald Trump is our president. It is hard to imagine how he will rid the world of
the Cold War and it's hard to miss his shift from talking about it directly to the war against
Muslim extremism. While we hope it would, working with Russia on ISIS does not mean that the taunting
by our Generals or by NATO will disappear. The President has bridled at the behavior of the CIA
but will he be able to reduce its power. Ditto the military that he praises as all presidents
do and speaks of making it even bigger.
His positions on trade will run up against the power of investors who want to freely move
their money where the profits are. Arguments like the second world war was a result of our protectionists
policies after the Depression hit will surface and the public will be reminded that advanced countries
simply don't behave the way he proposes.
On education reform he will find himself pilloried for trying to destroy public education,
and suggesting that parents should have choices will be derided as a violation of our Constitution
and its freedom of religion First Amendment and other charges piled upon those.
Touching preferential treatment because of race will be shouted out of the room.
In addition to those barriers to getting anything done there is the calls for America first,
which is fine except it must include a willingness to deal constructively with world problems.
For example, it is disappointing when talking about borders and immigrants, he did not connect
our role in the destruction of Middle East countries with the mass exodus from the region. Why
not point to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, even on the borders of Russia and China as places
where such extremism exists and changing our own behavior is important to combat it.
On health care, good luck. Obama gave us something which setting the move toward universal
coverage back years by creating a monster which helped those who see universal care as a threat
to their profits and power. Announcing a plan for universal coverage is far removed from the vision
Trump creates for our country of greater "freedom" and unleashing the constructive power of free
enterprise. Universal health coverage and opening up the health system to innovation could work
together but doubtful that Trump would have the power to make it happen even if he saw it as helping
the people.
So Trump, already pilloried, marginalized and boxed in, will have a hard time getting anything
done, and the interests that oppose anything progressive will not hesitate to unite, scratching
each others' back and help each other defeat whatever Trump proposes.
Trump the maverick, Trump the reformer. Would it be so.
Anon , January 21, 2017 at 7:20 am
The choice of one word by Obama is not a strong argument, nor is there a case that "almost
certainly" Russia hacked the DNC email, versus China or the US or a private hacker. The US certainly
did so, as it has far greater resources and is known to have the ability. So the most likely government
hacking source is a US agency like NSA. And the most likely source is the disaffected, resigned,
and murdered DNC staffer Mr. Rich.
Let's refuse to play the corrupt DNC game of distraction from the email contents. The story
here is that the DNC is controlled by big money and foreign powers Israel and KSA.
There is no other story on this subject, and this constant harping on the distraction story
suggests complicity in the diversion of public attention from the DNC corruption.
fudmier , January 21, 2017 at 9:56 am
The issue s/n/b "who" leaked "what", it s/b =>why, should information<= about "salaried,
elected 527 actor [and appointee] activities" be allowed any privilege of privacy or secrecy.
Obviously, those who need to be best informed in a democracy, about the activities and exploits
of those in or near to power, are those furtherest from the seats of power, the members of the
voting public. Privilege of secret or privacy belongs to those furtherest from the seats of power.
Seat occupants possess no privilege or secret to any aspect of their activities and exploits.
Democracy demands an inverse relationship between government actors closet to "centralized
power" and the "privilege" of secrecy or privacy.
evelync , January 21, 2017 at 10:46 am
you're absolutely correct, fudmier. Bernie was trusted by Dems, Independents and Republicans
because he spoke the plain truth about our sorry state of affairs. He would've won.
The DNC, corrupt, dishonest, did not serve the large majority of people in their own party.
They conspired to disrupt Bernie's candidacy from the beginning starting with the first primary
in the Southeast when they tried to discredit Bernie with that letter from the DNC chairs of the
southern block.
It is important for VIPS to demand the proof of the so called hack.
Hillary Clinton was not trusted. She was a weak candidate whose allegiance was to a tiny
sliver of powerful wealthy people. everybody knew that. She cost herself the election. The argument
her defenders are using trying to blame the Russians, the FBI, blah blah blah is that if only
the truth could have been kept from the voters their candidate would have won. That is a very
weak position and does not help their credibility. They play a dangerous game trying to inflame
passions against Russia instead of cleaning their own house.
Joel Kabakov , January 21, 2017 at 11:31 am
Sorry folks, this smacks of W. Bush maintaining "we have no direct evidence that Osama
Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11" fully knowing that the majority of Americans
had already been successfully programmed to the contrary. The big admission Obama is lacking here
is the admission that the whole "Putin hacked" scenario was scripted in the bowels of the American
security state otherwise known as the fourth branch of our government.
D5-5 , January 21, 2017 at 12:22 pm
Thank Obama for "dispelling . . . obfuscation"? Obama called for a thorough investigation
back in December then almost immediately made statements to the effect that "nothing much happens
without Putin knowing it" and "the Russians are capable of doing this" (the essence of his remarks).
Massaging the hysteria nicely, wasn't he? Now he states "conclusions are not conclusive." Once
again here he is the spinmaster on his silver toe defending his ego. Too kind, Ray, much too kind
and generous for this kind of behavior.
Mark Thomason , January 21, 2017 at 12:48 pm
Thank you. Good points well expressed. This has been buried by those who know better, as partisanship
has overtaken truth.
Trump bashing is an expression of the shock of 9:00 pm Election Night returns that were "impossible."
It is the political expression of Hillary's drunken ravings that night.
We see Stages of Grief in place of intelligence reports.
Bob Van Noy , January 21, 2017 at 12:55 pm
backwardsevolution, (Responding on Saturday). I thought you'd appreciate what Craig Murray
had to say about President Trump today and note the commentary because it's primarily European
Craig Murray's solid piece is very welcome!!
So glad that there are well informed and honest writers determined to reveal the difference between
our words and our actions as a country.
elmerfudzie , January 21, 2017 at 2:03 pm
Ray, the media propaganda that signaled another world war has now passed? I'd love to think
so FDR was quoted as saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool
all the people all the time" and IKE's, now famous or rather infamous (he did nothing to stop
the momentum) warning about the size and growth of our military industrial congressional complex.
Yet, politicians and citizen proles alike seem to dismiss these words of wisdom. Humanity continues
to be dragged towards an inevitable disaster.
Trump announced that he will INCREASE military spending while rebuilding our infrastructure?-already
he's BS-ing us.
The NYT will preserve it's reputation as the "toilet paper of record" a remarkably accurate
quip from that, All American, Gerald Celente of Trends Research.
The apocalyptic visions of George Orwell's warnings "Big Brother is Watching You," have
now come to pass. Let us re-examine the classic works of that master of propaganda, Edward Bernays
and his modern day student, Philip D. Zelikow.
It is here we will find the current societal Mission of George Orwell's, Ministry of Truth(s),
that is, all three branches of our federal government.
Information gatekeepers of the new Ministry of Propaganda have assumed the shape of, and taken
full control of, most of the Western Occident cable and newsprint media. These facts serve to
amplify my WW III fears and warnings. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote: "The art of propaganda consists
precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings,
in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the
hearts of the national masses." This same oratory is the "new" yet at the same time, terribly
old, politic of the new POTUS.
"... "It's about shutting down the voices of the dissidents," Hedges says. He explains that America always needs an enemy and that Russian President Vladimir Putin is "easier to demonize" than someone like FBI Director James Comey, who was initially seen as the enemy when Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election. ..."
In a new episode of his RT show "Redacted Tonight (https://www.rt.com/shows/redacted-tonight-summary/373661-deep-state-trump-presidency/)
," host Lee Camp sits down with Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges (https://www.truthdig.com/staff/chris_hedges)
to discuss the "collapse of the mainstream media and the continued rise of [the] deep state."
The two examine recent headlines over alleged Russian hacks (http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/experts_arent_convinced_by_fbi_and_homeland_security_20161230)
during the 2016 election. Hedges condemns the mainstream media for "hyperventilating" over the
alleged hacks, adding that the media fervor about Russia has "insidious" roots.
"It's about shutting down the voices of the dissidents," Hedges says. He explains that
America always needs an enemy and that Russian President Vladimir Putin is "easier to demonize"
than someone like FBI Director James Comey, who was initially seen as the enemy when Hillary
Clinton lost the presidential election.
Hedges notes that there are also economic factors at play. The "war machine," he says, needs to
"demonize Russia" because it "is earning billions of dollars in Eastern Europe with the expansion
of NATO."
Camp asks how Donald Trump, who presented himself as a political outsider, will handle these
economic and political forces when he becomes president. Hedges responds:
I'm not sure Trump has any fixed beliefs. And it's clear that the deep state-the security and
surveillance apparatus, the war machine-all sectors of the deep state, Democrat and Republican,
are going to put the screws on him to ratchet up or continue this aggressive posture towards
Russia. Partly because there are large sections of the U.S. economy, i.e., the defense industry,
for whom this is a huge profit-making venture.
The two also discuss how dissidents will be handled by the Trump administration and whether
American society has anything to hope for.
What Russia's crime consisted of, by the most damaging interpretation, was hacking into a private
server belonging to a political party and possibly allowing the admittedly factual but embarrassing
material obtained to make its way into the media. Excuse me, but that is what intelligence agencies
do routinely to justify their multiple billion dollar budgets. The United States is the world leader
in such activity as revealed by Jim Bamford's
books
on the subject and also through the revelations obtained in the Snowden papers. Now Russia
is being condemned for possibly doing some of the same, though no evidence is being provided, and
the story is being framed as if we are by definition the good guys and Vladimir Putin is the devil
incarnate.
What I am saying is that the United States mainstream media is the primary source of
fake news due to its inbuilt biases on what is acceptable and what is not. It actually hurts black
people by its attempts to be protective and its unwillingness to consider a news story through the
eyes of the other party for chauvinistic reasons means that Americans are particularly uninformed
about what is going on in the world. To suggest that all of this is particularly dangerous, both
in terms of domestic tranquility and possible foreign threats, would be an understatement.
"... The implication inherent in DNI Clapper's revelation is that the classified information relied
upon by the Intelligence Community was so specific as to its nature, and so critical and central to
the judgments made in the ICA, that it could not be worked around to the extent necessary to shield
its specific source from the analysts in the INR. ..."
"... If DNI Clapper is telling the truth, then the ICA was prepared in a manner that violated the
very tradecraft regarding the preparation of intelligence community analytical products he proudly cited
to underpin the credibility of the ICA. It also implies that the intelligence community was comfortable
with excluding from one of the most important assessments of Russian intent in modern times the very
agency, the Department of State, that deals with the Russians on a broad spectrum of issues on a daily
basis, and as such would be ideally positioned to weigh in on issues such as Russian intent – especially
that of its leader, Vladimir Putin. ..."
Exposing The Man Behind The Curtain Scott Ritter, Huffington Post (Fiver). Important.
"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these
espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are
designed to influence our election." This statement was false when it was made by Hillary Clinton,
on October 9, 2016, referring to the aforementioned October 7 joint statement by DHS and the ODNI;
as was the case for the Russian ICA, the joint statement drew upon only three of the 16 agencies
(the 17th is the ODNI, which is a coordinating body, not a separate intelligence agency), the
only intelligence agencies involved in crafting the underlying assessments and judgments were
the FBI, CIA and NSA.
When one dissects the nuts and bolts that hold the Russian ICA together, the framework is actually
quite weak. The FBI, the sole agency responsible for intelligence derived from a domestic source
(i.e., the DNC server and John Podesta) has acknowledged that it has had no direct access to the
servers involved, and was compelled to carry out its investigation based upon the technical report
of a private cyber security company, Crowdstrike, brought in by the DNC in April 2016***.
..
It was interesting to note that DNI Clapper told the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, in
open session on January 10, 2016, that the State Department, in particular its Bureau of Intelligence
and Research (INR) was excluded from participating in the preparation of the classified ICA because
of "sensitivity of sources." This seems to be a unique circumstance, as the Senator who asked
the question noted; INR analysts possess the highest level of security clearances that grant them
access to a broad range of highly classified sources of intelligence.
The implication inherent in DNI Clapper's revelation is that the classified information
relied upon by the Intelligence Community was so specific as to its nature, and so critical and
central to the judgments made in the ICA, that it could not be worked around to the extent necessary
to shield its specific source from the analysts in the INR.
This exclusion, however, would cut across the entire intelligence community, given the "need
to know" caveats attached to most, if not all, sensitive information of this nature. If this was,
indeed, the standard applied, then it would also exclude from participation in preparation of
the ICA many of the CIA's own analysts, and most, if not all, of the academics recruited to fill
positions within the National Intelligence Council, the arm of the ODNI responsible for overseeing
the production of multi-agency assessments like the ICA on Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential
election.
If DNI Clapper is telling the truth, then the ICA was prepared in a manner that violated
the very tradecraft regarding the preparation of intelligence community analytical products he
proudly cited to underpin the credibility of the ICA. It also implies that the intelligence community
was comfortable with excluding from one of the most important assessments of Russian intent in
modern times the very agency, the Department of State, that deals with the Russians on a broad
spectrum of issues on a daily basis, and as such would be ideally positioned to weigh in on issues
such as Russian intent – especially that of its leader, Vladimir Putin.
==================================================================
It may seem like a small lie, 3 bureaucracies instead of 17, but it is is an innate characteristic
of these institutions and individuals. They spread a lot of disinformation. And than of course,
the lying by omission.
Its a complete and thorough "assessment" .except for the fact that all those cynics, skeptics,
and anyone with the expertise to refute the dubious assumptions and obvious biases of the CIA
were excluded.
So, the CIA says "WE ALL AGREE" – does anyone know of a MSM that has pointed out that the "intelligence
report" is a consensus ONLY because anybody who disagreed was left off???
One group, which CrowdStrike had dubbed Cozy Bear, had gained access last summer and was monitoring
the DNC's email and chat communications, Alperovitch said.
The other, which the firm had named Fancy Bear, broke into the network in late April and targeted
the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two
files, Henry said. And they had access to the computers of the entire research staff - an average
of about several dozen on any given day.
The computers contained research going back years on TRUMP. "It's a huge job" to dig into the
dealings of somebody who has never run for office before, Dacey said.
CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC
employees with "spearphishing" emails. These are communications that appear legitimate - often
made to look like they came from a colleague or someone trusted - but that contain links or attachments
that when clicked on deploy malicious software that enables a hacker to gain access to a computer.
"But WE DON'T HAVE HARD EVIDENCE," Alperovitch said.
===================================
Soooo .the DNC is mad that Russia got all their Trump Opo dirt for free?
Ritter's piece is unfortunately too detailed and informative–too accurate, in a word–for the
vast majority of the screen-reading populace, the credentialed among whom are much dumber and
less cultured than their working-class forebears. It's much less taxing to read Jeff Bezos's Blog
while ordering your no-whip vanilla latte than trying to work through the far-reaching implications
of Ritter's analysis.
Poor Ritter – doomed to be this era's Cassandra. Or maybe poor us (poor "US" as in USA) – doomed
to ignore the truthful and listen to the liars ..
and the population all composed of Hamilton Burgers*
*Hamilton Burger was the rather obtuse District Attorney who charged the clients of Perry Mason
with crimes, when week after ween, month after month, year after year the clients would be exonerated***
Most people would have long ago figured out not to charge people Perry Mason was defending, but
this DA never learned .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Mason_(TV_series)
***When asked by a fan why Perry Mason won every case, Burr told her, "But madam, you see only
the cases I try on Saturday."[61]:590
Mason is known to have lost, in some form or manner, three cases-"The Case of the Terrified Typist",
"The Case of the Witless Witness", and "The Case of the Deadly Verdict".[72]
Why read Ritter . when you can just 'turn on' to Mara liasson ,or lachml Singh, or any of the
assorted stenographic heathers on N P R ..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I don't see Scott tossing out tote bags to the rabble
These failures are furthered when one incorporates the shortcomings of American intelligence
analysis behind the failure to accurately predict the Russian actions against Georgia in 2008,
the annexation of the Crimea in 2014, and the intervention in Syria in 2015 – in short, the
track record of the very intelligence community that produced the ICA addressing allegations
of a Russian influence campaign targeting the 2016 US Presidential election is not impressive.
I took that to mean that the IC was too stupid to figure out that Russia would not just sit
back and do nothing while the US interfered in their sphere of influence, not necessarily that
Russia was the instigator.
Why hasn't anybody demanded to see CrowdStrike's pedigree beyond its vague vetting (?) by the
DNC? A private company that has remained anonymous except for its name – well that makes no sense.
Or rather, it makes the DNC look even worse.
Not to mention that one thing that no one seems to be disputing is that DNC cyber security
was terrible to non-existent, so their judgment in this area can be considered weak at best.
That would be the function of a "principled press," the position of which can be summarized
as "Trump and Putin sittin' in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G."
Still, I can't help but wonder if the "principled" press and the "intelligence" community have
not painted themselves into a corner. With Trump and Putin portrayed as locked in a loving embrace
and isis seemingly dropped off the face of the earth, should Trump meet with a tragic "accident,"
whom will the public blame?
Because Alperovitch is also on the Atlantic Council(neocons-NATO) and also has very close ties
to Ukraine Nationals? Reaching across the aisle and bi-partisian support, methinks.
"spearphishing" – See Podesta dump for screenshots of phishing site asking for Podesta to enter
his id and password.
The so called "unique" Russian exploit techniques are old, and can be done by many other reasonably
competent hackers.
Surprising to me is that no one yet has mentioned that a real state hacker would hide her IP
behind probably multiple large VPN networks. There might be some way of setting up "spoof servers"
too, but I'm nowhere competent enough in this subject to say anything with much certainty. Other
than CrowdStrike is full of crap.
If I'm not getting e-mails urging me to update some password or the other, I'm getting tales
of woe regarding package delivery or something going wrong with an account of a bank I've never
used.
Do I respond? Nope. Do I click on the links or open the attachments in these e-mails? Uh-uh.
So, am I now in the running for a position at the DNC?
Errors have been made by the Intelligence Community in the past and, given the punishing
reality of a fair and open society, and the scrutiny of a free press contained within, these failures
have been exposed – sometimes ruthlessly so – for all the world to see. From the reversal of the
Intelligence Community's stance on the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program,
underestimating the scope and reach of the threat of the Islamic State, and the exaggeration of
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the shortcomings of the intelligence assessments and estimates
conducted by the IC over the past two decades – the period spanning the careers of those who continue
to provide the analysis that underpinned these highlighted erroneous conclusions and findings
– the public history of the failures of the judgment of the American intelligence community is
extensive and uncomplimentary.
This represents massive overhead that can't even be ditched as sunk costs. Keeping this "intelligence"
enterprise going is embedded in the government's budget, and the results of these massive errors
have caused thousands of untold lives to be destroyed, even the ones still alive, and wasted trillions
of dollars, which is ongoing. Meanwhile the rest of the country crumbles.
"You're fired", directed at upper management of the "intelligence" community can't come fast
enough from President Trump's mouth.
"the shortcomings of the intelligence assessments and estimates conducted by the IC over the
past two decades"
This article comes awfully close to equating "assessment" with "wild ass guess" but doesn't
quite go that far. (probably deemed unprofessional)
The misplaced dedication shown by our IC goes further back ..probably even further back than when
the FBI spent two years studying the lyrics of "Louie, Louie"
Thinking back, the Democrats and Beltway insiders were still believing their computers' predictions
of a Hillary at the time the "Russians are coming" mantra began.
Something tells me this was expected to be the pretext for a Clinton administration led conflict
with Russia they just didn't want to let Trump winning stop their plans.
So it's coming off very clumsily. Lots lost in the improvisation.
Campaign internals. The appearance schedule, reports of polls asking about opinions of Michelle,
and Obama hitting the campaign trail when he would ideally like to make a grand gesture such as
fraudulent peace talks was a sign the campaign was in trouble.
There is a good chance the vaunted "data" people noticed the Republicans they expected to win
weren't abandoning Trump and registration efforts over the Summer didn't pan out due to lack of
effort.
Russia is the new Nader, war President, and how Bush out spent Kerry on ads excuses from previous
campaigns to excuse the same old Clinton ideas and people leading to the usual disaster. I believe
the Green Party moved to recount mode so swiftly to blunt being turned into the villain.
To ruin your Sunday morning, listen (if you have the stomach) to Council on Foreign Relations
head Richard Haas
on the Tavis Smiley show . Doubling down on the Washington consensus, and clearly trying to
talk up
an intervention in Venezuela. Because R2P can not fail – it can only be failed.
The Russian Dossier Reminds Me of the Row Over Saddam's WMDs Counterpunch
"Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry
and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively,
[said that] the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential
candidate, Donald TRUMP, for at least FIVE YEARS."
==========================================================
Dang those guys are prescience .I wanna ask them what stocks to buy (Hot Octopuss? are masturbatoriums
the coming thing???), or better yet, what lottery numbers to pick ..
Those Euro-Asians are patience and they think long term.
In the 1963 movie, Bye Bye Birdie, Dick Van Dyke played Al Peterson, whose song, The Last Kiss,
to by sung by the just-drafted Conrad (or was it Comrade) Birdie, on the Ed Sullivan Show, was
going to make him rich enough to take care of his mother and marry his girl friend. The plan was
spoiled by those scheming Russian ballet dancers whose number was going to run too long that Ed
Sullivan had to eliminate the song. So, the attack on American freedom went way, way back.
Moreover, Van Dyke, being a Ph.D. in biochemistry, had invented a pill to 'speed up' animals
and humans as well. The girl friend, posing as a photo-journalist, was able to slip a speed-up
pill into the conductor Borov's milk, in order to 'speed up' their show, and restore Birde's lost
minutes. While this successful patriotic plan was unfolding, you can see a mad Russkie official
clutching a shoe, as if he was ready to hit something with it.
That, there, was the subliminal message to all future shoe-throwers who are now plaguing our
world these days.
And, comrades, that's long-range planning five years is nothing.
Initially, the devious rooskies were grooming Trump to take down Vince McMahon and totally
flatten the Rosie Threat. When they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams is when things went
to their heads and they got too big for their britches.
Now they're coming after our super stars. Those rooskies need to be taken down a notch or two.
Although I was aware of Schumer's recent comment to Maddow ("You take on the intelligence community?
They have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you") I did not get around to watching the exchange
until today.
What struck me when watching it was that Schumer is saying, on the record, that establshment
politicians are subservient to the intelligence agencies because it is considered an accepted
fact that their careers will be at risk if they do not give these agencies the freedom to act
however they see fit. That is an incredibly dangerous dynamic, and what's worse is that it has
been normalized and accepted by cowardly and/or corrupt politicians who purport to serve their
constituents.
I for one am grateful that Trump has enough spine to stand firm wrt putting these agencies
back in their place (especially the
CIA ), which is, after all, to serve and protect the citizens of the US.
"their careers" – or given not-so-recent-yet-not-so-ancient USian history – indeed even their
lives could/ would be at risk
the schumer-maddow exchange can certainly be –chillingly– interpreted in a number of ways.
The blob is all powerful ?? or people like Schumer are afraid of their own shadow sadly methinx
it is the later The blob is able to function since characters sit in the seats of power instead
of real men ( & not enough women).
In much like how the mafia slowly brings someone to the dark side by having them do small indiscretions
and crimes over a period of time until the victim becomes the victimizer, the blob will attempt
to reel one in by burping out national security or just dumping natsec "non disclosures" or luring
in someone close to you or finding someone close to you who they already have in their pockets
If one resists too much, then the existing wimps in charge make sure you get stuck in some
subcommittees handling bipartisan egg rolls on the whitehouse lawn
Get along or get along now(scoot)
It is getting near the end of the movie and toto has pulled back the curtain .
I guess this means Chucky won't be calling any .. uh .. 'plumbing contractors' .. to his house
anytime soon, unless they're members of Conniving .. Instigators .. Associates --
Schumer is no lightweight, if he says/believes this then we have a whole lot to be worried
about. Thank goodness for Trump.
(For the record, I voted McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama)
Schumer has never been accused of being overly intelligent. He is still miffed because HRC
went down in flames. She was supposed to be his partner in crime for eight years.
And he was supposed to be Senate Majority Leader and get a really cool office instead of the
crummy basement one. Given the seats up for reelection in 2018, he will have to wait until January
2021.
When I watched that exchange the other evening in real time, it seemed ominous to me, very
dark. I think he was trying to instill real fear into the heart of Trump. I wonder if someone
like a Trump has ever felt fear. It makes you wonder. Or if Trump has ever dealt with anyone more
powerful than he believes himself to be.
What struck me when watching it was that Schumer is saying, on the record, that establshment
politicians are subservient to the intelligence agencies because it is considered an accepted
fact that their careers will be at risk if they do not give these agencies the freedom to act
however they see fit. That is an incredibly dangerous dynamic, and what's worse is that it
has been normalized and accepted by cowardly and/or corrupt politicians who purport to serve
their constituents
Well hasn't this been pretty much the case since the incident in Dallas 50 plus years ago?
I'm somewhat surprised Booker did not pull a Nancy Pelosi type vote on this bill.
From what I remember, on the TPP Fast Track, Pelosi worked behind the scenes to get Fast Track
through, and then, with enough votes to assure it would pass without her vote, voted against the
very action she had promoted.
Of course, Pelosi's constituents were opposed to the TPP and she "supported" them.
Booker could have quietly, privately, assured his big Pharma funders he was in the tank for
them while still voting in support of the drug importation bill, because if his vote had moved
to the supporting side, the count would have been 47-51 and the bill would still fall the way
the big Pharma wanted.
Maybe other senators in the 46 "supporters" were playing the cynical Pelosi optics type of
game and Booker had to fall on his sword to show both his loyalty to big Pharma and give them
cover?
Possibly Booker also priced in that there are about 4 years before the next presidential election
and this vote could fall into the dustbin of history.
Dems have gotten away with a lot, hiding behind Obama or Hillary and using the rotating villain
strategy, and now they don't have a leader to protect them. Booker doesn't have the cult of personality
Obama had, and there won't be an echo chamber to shut down dissent. I don't believe Democrats
have a handle on their status.
No it was Russia's fault. Now we must circle the wagons and destroy Russia. Ya better be with
me cause we are soon going to war to protect democracy and if you ain't with me you are a ( fill
in the blank). The Democratic party does not make mistakes. The rag tag voters make mistakes!
Now send us some money so we can stop Trump!
Will this b******t ever end. It is driving me nuts.
Me too MaH. The imitation democracy that is the USA is just a pathetic sideshow and brutally
overpriced.
The only interesting aspect right now is how Trump responds to the unintelligence community
for their transparent insubordination and abuse of power. Time will tell.
Dems have had the delusional idea since they caught the car bumper and had both Houses of Congress
and the Presidency that just one of those is good, and preferably the Presidency. Hence their
lack of panic as they lost the House, the Senate and most of the state legislatures and Governorships
in the nation.
Having now lost the one thing they were determined to win, they are going to slowly find out
that there is no place to hide when their constituents are going to expect them to use all the
same levers the Republicans did to obstruct all that stuff Obama wanted to do. They can't do the
rotating villain thing, they can't NOT block things AND when that doesn't work the myth that Obama
was hamstrung by Republicans is going to fall apart. Oops.
Mind you the Republicans are going to have the problem of needing to pass the things they promised
and living with those consequences.
It is going to be interesting. And terrifying especially with the IC and MIC having tantrums
that would do two year olds proud.
One fear of the Democrats might be they could be now be viewed as a useless appendage to the
political process and unworthy of financial support by TPTB.
That could hit them hard as Democratic think tanks lose funding and the NPV of the future lobbying
potential of a current Democratic politician drops off dramatically.
The Dems might actually feel a personal recession as they lose the ability to place their friends
and relatives in well-paid politically related jobs.
TPTB can simply support a handful of Blue-dog Democrats to buy a voting cushion on legislation
that matters to them.
Why pay more than necessary for Democratic support when it is largely irrelevant?
And the Dem reaction, of course, will be to suck up even harder to their money masters they've
already concluded from the election that they weren't far enough to the right, this should mesh
quite nicely. We've had one party in the country for decades, Obama's populist words (while pushing
neo-con corporo-fascist actions) bamboozled for two terms, now we will get absolute unity in pushing
the 1% agenda. Then we can do 1776 redux and take back our country.
People really are loathe to admit that Obama has been an utter freakin' disaster. I was telling
someone about how close the ALEC owned state houses were to getting their Constitutional convention
and blamed Obama. I was lectured about how he came into a mess and that he was obviously not the
problem it was people like Wasserman Schultz. I had to explain about the President and the DNC
and that both Kaine and DWS were Obama's hand picked heads, that he moved grass roots organizing
to OFA AND that over the course of his leadership of the party they had gone from having the Presidency,
the House, the Senate, a majority of Governorships and an almost equal number of state legislative
houses to exactly the opposite. Suffice it to say I left them speechless.
And none of that should have been all that revelatory to a supposed political junkie. But to
recognize that he wasn't interested in Democrats winning who were not named Obama is to understand
he didn't care that he would not be in a position to get anything Democratic voters want
In one sense, Obama's failure was not in our stars but in ourselves, not me personally. If
the Obots who cared so much for Obama and politics had torn themselves away from the latest insipid
episode of X and called their Congressman or Senator instead of "liking" a cool meme about Obama,
he might have been under enough pressure to not be completely terrible. Obama's evolution on gay
rights only came after public outrage.
The Obama followers have to understand this and simply don't want to admit their own complicity
preferring to blame their plumber who may or may not have voted.
Example 1: Krugthullu's recent craziness.
Example 2: Greta Van Susteren and noted racist, Megan Kelly both scored gigs at NBC. Were no Dems
available? Or at least someone who didn't have a meltdown over a black Santa?
Example 3: the CGI shutting down despite all the good they do (snark)
Well that may be their strategy going ahead, but if you looked at the last couple of elections,
they just were not interested in winning elections. Money was thrown at people who didn't really
need it, token amounts to others. People were chosen to run who had lost in the past, or the usual
suspects owed. There was little or no recruitment, the former Republicans they supported pretty
much fell in their laps.
No they are going to have to seriously attempt to win even on a limited manner, and I don't think
they have clue how anymore.
Who knows .. Maybe the Donald with bring about a presidential decree, thereby forcing our reps
& senators to don 'advertizing' as per Nascar race cars --
Then it would be apparent to all as to whose loyalties they actually cater to .
Flake's on the ballot in November, and McCain does do his rotating hero strategy, he's on the
side of good when it doesn't matter. He does have a huge senior population who like that desert
air.
There are two Senators scheduled to be at this event: Booker and Menendez, and they both voted
against the Klobuchar/Sanders amendment to allow Americans to buy medicine from Canada! Clearly
this event was scheduled before the vote occurred. I wonder what kinds of discussions about this
have been occurring behind the scenes?
Did you know that there is a Senate Ukraine Caucus? News to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Ukraine_Caucus
The Senate Ukraine Caucus is a bipartisan caucus of the United States Senate that was Ron Johnson
(R-WI); Amy Klobuchar (D-MN); Mark Kirk (R-IL); James Inhofe (R-OK); Chris Murphy (D-CT). Gary
Peters (D-MI); Rob Portman (R-OH)
It's OK when Ukraine manipulates US politics. The US has always found nazis to be useful in
its anti-Russian efforts, from Reinhard Behlen to Wernher von Braun, with a few Ukie Banderites
thrown in for the truly dirty work.
DHS security honchos want to justify their existence. There is not greater danger to national
security then careerists in position of security professionals. Lying and exaggerating the
treats to get this dollars is is what many security professionals do for living. They are
essentially charlatans.
Notable quotes:
"... In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure. ..."
"... Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
"... Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack." ..."
"... That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012. ..."
"... Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE." ..."
"... according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients. ..."
"... "Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives." ..."
"... The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications private. ..."
"... Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, US officials say." ..."
"... DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability." ..."
"... The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed. ..."
"... Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is encouraging people to run indicators.'" ..."
"... The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion" into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication. ..."
"... The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining that it must have been a Russian hack. ..."
The mainstream hysteria over Russia has led to dubious or downright false stories that have
deepened the New Cold War
In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with
the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria
by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure.
DHS had initiated the now-discredited tale of a hacked computer at the Burlington, Vermont Electricity
Department by sending the utility's managers misleading and alarming information, then leaked a story
they certainly knew to be false and continued to put out a misleading line to the media.
Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking
of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.
The story of how DHS twice circulated false stories of Russian efforts to sabotage US "critical
infrastructure" is a cautionary tale of how senior leaders in a bureaucracy-on-the-make take advantage
of every major political development to advance its own interests, with scant regard for the truth.
The DHS had carried out a major public campaign to focus on an alleged Russian threat to US power
infrastructure in early 2016. The campaign took advantage of a US accusation of a Russian cyber-attack
against the Ukrainian power infrastructure in December 2015 to promote one of the agency's major
functions - guarding against cyber-attacks on America's infrastructure.
Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for
electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications
for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical
impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack."
That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national
infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran
by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012.
Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with
the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald
Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across
the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate
and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that
it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE."
The report clearly conveyed to the utilities that the "tools and infrastructure" it said had been
used by Russian intelligence agencies to affect the election were a direct threat to them as well.
However, according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who
had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US
infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients.
"Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We
ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives."
Lee and his staff found only two of a long list of malware files that could be linked to Russian
hackers without more specific data about timing. Similarly a large proportion of IP addresses listed
could be linked to "GRIZZLY STEPPE" only for certain specific dates, which were not provided.
The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report
as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows
bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications
private.
Lee said the DHS staff that worked on the technical information in the report is highly competent,
but the document was rendered useless when officials classified and deleted some key parts of the
report and added other material that shouldn't have been in it. He believes the DHS issued the report
"for a political purpose," which was to "show that the DHS is protecting you."
Planting the Story, Keeping it Alive
Upon receiving the DHS-FBI report the Burlington Electric Company network security team immediately
ran searches of its computer logs using the lists of IP addresses it had been provided. When one
of IP addresses cited in the report as an indicator of Russian hacking was found on the logs, the
utility immediately called DHS to inform it as it had been instructed to do by DHS.
In fact, the IP address on the Burlington Electric Company's computer was simply the Yahoo e-mail
server, according to Lee, so it could not have been a legitimate indicator of an attempted cyber-intrusion.
That should have been the end of the story. But the utility did not track down the IP address before
reporting it to DHS. It did, however, expect DHS to treat the matter confidentially until it had
thoroughly investigated and resolved the issue.
"DHS wasn't supposed to release the details," said Lee. "Everybody was supposed to keep their
mouth shut."
Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators
of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post
failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking
with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story
under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont,
US officials say."
DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the
grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code
to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity
in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's
electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."
The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected
to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid
had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of
a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed.
The day after the story was published, the DHS leadership continued to imply, without saying so
explicitly, that the Burlington utility had been hacked by Russians. Assistant Secretary for Pubic
Affairs J. Todd Breasseale gave CNN a statement that the "indicators" from the malicious software
found on the computer at Burlington Electric were a "match" for those on the DNC computers.
As soon as DHS checked the IP address, however, it knew that it was a Yahoo cloud server and therefore
not an indicator that the same team that allegedly hacked the DNC had gotten into the Burlington
utility's laptop. DHS also learned from the utility that the laptop in question had been infected
by malware called "neutrino," which had never been used in "GRIZZLY STEPPE."
Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending
its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The
DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is
encouraging people to run indicators.'"
Original DHS False Hacking Story
The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking
of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion"
into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication.
Like the Burlington fiasco, the false report was preceded by a DHS claim that US infrastructure
systems were already under attack. In October 2011, acting DHS deputy undersecretary Greg Schaffer
was quoted by The Washington Post as warning that "our adversaries" are "knocking on the doors of
these systems." And Schaffer added, "In some cases, there have been intrusions." He did not specify
when, where or by whom, and no such prior intrusions have ever been documented.
On Nov. 8, 2011, a water pump belonging to the Curran-Gardner township water district near Springfield,
Illinois, burned out after sputtering several times in previous months. The repair team brought in
to fix it found a Russian IP address on its log from five months earlier. That IP address was actually
from a cell phone call from the contractor who had set up the control system for the pump and who
was vacationing in Russia with his family, so his name was in the log by the address.
Without investigating the IP address itself, the utility reported the IP address and the breakdown
of the water pump to the Environmental Protection Agency, which in turn passed it on to the Illinois
Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center, also called a fusion center composed of Illinois State
Police and representatives from the FBI, DHS and other government agencies.
On Nov. 10 – just two days after the initial report to EPA – the fusion center produced a report
titled "Public Water District Cyber Intrusion" suggesting a Russian hacker had stolen the identity
of someone authorized to use the computer and had hacked into the control system causing the water
pump to fail.
The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine
that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in
putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining
that it must have been a Russian hack.
The fusion center "intelligence report," circulated by DHS Office of Intelligence and Research,
was picked up by a cyber-security blogger, who called The Washington Post and read the item to a
reporter. Thus the Post published the first sensational story of a Russian hack into a US infrastructure
on Nov. 18, 2011.
After the real story came out, DHS disclaimed responsibility for the report, saying that it was
the fusion center's responsibility. But a Senate subcommittee investigation
revealed in
a report a year later that even after the initial report had been discredited, DHS had not issued
any retraction or correction to the report, nor had it notified the recipients about the truth.
DHS officials responsible for the false report told Senate investigators such reports weren't
intended to be "finished intelligence," implying that the bar for accuracy of the information didn't
have to be very high. They even claimed that report was a "success" because it had done what "what
it's supposed to do – generate interest."
Both the Burlington and Curran-Gardner episodes underline a central reality of the political game
of national security in the New Cold War era: major bureaucratic players like DHS have a huge political
stake in public perceptions of a Russian threat, and whenever the opportunity arises to do so, they
will exploit it.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security
policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war
in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at
[email protected].
"... Agree that is the real reason they don't want to take responsibility. It would mean that the Establishment would be discredited. ..."
"... It is easy to read the report and understand how the CIA concluded that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction – you start with what you want to conclude and than you can find evidence. Likewise for Russian hacking . ..."
"... If you like, see this link to Mish – a blogger sometimes in the NC links. Mish does the thought experiment of whether Israel undermined Hillary (and a whole lot more) – but it shows that Israel is just as plausible as Russia if you apply CIA type reasoning . ..."
"... Masha Gessen is deeply antiputinitic. So if she finds the "Putin diddit" narrative unconvincing, it must be weak indeed. ..."
Masha Gessen hardly can be called a sympasizer of Putin;-). Actually the reverse is very true.
The New McCarthyism
"Russia, Trump & Flawed Intelligence" [Masha Gessen,
New York Review of Books
]. "On Friday, when the report appeared, the
major newspapers came out with virtually identical headlines highlighting
the agencies' finding that Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered an
"influence campaign" to help Donald Trump win the presidency-a finding the
agencies say they hold 'with high confidence.'
A close reading of the report shows that it barely supports such a
conclusion. Indeed, it barely supports any conclusion."
And: "That is the entirety of the evidence the report offers to support
its estimation of Putin's motives for allegedly working to elect Trump:
conjecture based on other politicians in other periods, on other
continents-and also on misreported or mistranslated public statements." A
massive takedown, from the heart of the Manhattan intelligentsia.
Class Warfare
[A study published late last month by the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)]
released Dec. 20, said the jobs of between 1.34 million and 1.67 million truck drivers would be at
risk due to the growing utilization of heavy-duty vehicles operated via artificial intelligence.
That would equal 80 to 100 percent of all driver jobs listed in the CEA report, which is based on
May 2015 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a unit of the Department of Labor. There are
about 3.4 million commercial truck drivers currently operating in the U.S., according to various
estimates" [DC Velocity]. "The Council emphasized that its calculations excluded the number or types
of new jobs that may be created as a result of this potential transition. It added that any changes
could take years or decades to materialize because of a broad lag between what it called
"technological possibility" and widespread adoption."
What I'm disappointed in the DNC and the Party as a whole is rather than
admit their failings, they want to conjure up Russia as a distraction. I'm not
saying that Putin's a great guy (he seems to be an oligarch), but the Democrats
need to take responsibility for 2016.
If not, 2020 might end up like 2016 again. If they think Trump will fail no
matter what, take a hard look at what happened to Kerry in 2004. Stop
underestimating Trump. He's got a base and the Democrats screwed up big time.
If Democrats take "responsibility" for 2016, the courtesan class will be
wiped out, and many elected Dems who dream of a spot on the ticket in 2020
will have to accept they are going no where. Andy Cuomo sees himself in 2020
running. He's like Hillary without the charisma.
Agree that is the real reason they don't want to take
responsibility. It would mean that the Establishment would be
discredited.
One question though, Clinton had charisma? Are we talking about the
same candidate here? I though that Clinton was a wooden stump. You could
tell that what she said was forced. Apparently one of the Wikileaks leaks
said that she hated the American people.
It is easy to read the report and understand how the CIA concluded
that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction – you start with what you want
to conclude and than you can find evidence. Likewise for Russian hacking .
If you like, see this link to Mish – a blogger sometimes in the NC
links. Mish does the thought experiment of whether Israel undermined Hillary
(and a whole lot more) – but it shows that Israel is just as plausible as
Russia if you apply CIA type reasoning .
The new McCarthyism . when the IC report came out it was noted the numbers
on the RT/CNN comparison report were inaccurate. Someone looked and it turned
out the numbers were from several years ago . and the person criticized the
report for including a 4 to 5 year old criticism of RT to pad the length of the
report.
I wonder how long the mainstream media (see CNN above) can sustain the
left's jouissance WRT Bernie until it blows up in their face? It seems like the
elite liberal class is finding his "voice" a far more useful resistance to
Trump compared to the overly simplified identity narrative or pathetic
"foreign" threat narrative, but how long can they play with that fire. The fact
is, Bernie really does talk about issues and policy, in a concrete way, in a
demonstrable way. Those perspectives with class consciousness, and a dash of
populist passions and you have political nitro far more threatening to the
establishment than anything Trump can dish out. I'm all for it though I am very
suspicious. I'm wondering what they (liberal elites) are cooking up.
Nope, it was Putin's fault. Although, in fairness, Linker doesn't claim it
was Obama's fault, only that he "helped prepare the way for the
anti-establishment, populist wave " Master propagandist Putin knows a good
opportunity when he sees one:
Moscow is pushing populist movements to bring 'real security threats
to Europe,' new report says
[McClatchy]
"Moscow is encouraging a wave of populism that extends from the election of
President-elect Donald Trump through Brexit and rise of nationalist politics in
France and Germany to bring about 'real security threats to Europe,' "
according to a report in a new NATO journal."
Don trumpioni and his capos are gonna woyk on keepyn the nayburhood nice
again kapeesh ??
As to the new McCarthyism, despite the capacity of fartspace and garggle to
have algorithms filter certain "thoughts", the problems for the death spiral
media are not going away and the death of myspace is a perfect example of the
capacity of the blob to choke on its own vomit same for the rise and fall of
the aol reich it was everywhere and then it was nothing
Some self stylized masters of the universe imagine their luck as
genius Cuban andreesson
when all they are good at(which is good for their own pocket) is selling as
soon as the griddle gets hot and the sound of the searing begins
The internet of no-things and self krashing kars are well designed pitches
but the details
getting a virus or giving a virus to your over inquisitive refrigerator
should deal with the all seeing pinkman brigade
last I checked, customer service was not exactly the top issue concerning
wall street
Money isnt being spent on the infrastructure that exists today all this big
blobber nonsense will require a tenfold increase in maintenance
or are the folks who could not or would not program a vcr to reset the time
automaticaly when there was a power outage suddenly all qualify to be mensa
members
Is the United States the victim of an unprovoked cyber and media attack by
Russia and China or are the chickens coming home to roost after Washington's
own promotion of such activity worldwide? On Thursday Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper
asserted
to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that while no foreign
government had been able to interfere with actual voting machines, "U.S.
agencies are more confident than ever that Russia interfered in America's
recent presidential election. And he called the former Cold War foe an
'existential threat' to the nation." Pressed by Senator John McCain whether the
"attack" constituted an "act of war," Clapper demurred, saying that it would be
a "very heavy policy call" to say so. He also said that he could not judge if
the election outcome had been changed due to the claimed outside interference.
Clapper also claimed that the Russian effort included including the creation
and dissemination of fake stories,
explaining that
" While there has been a lot of focus on the hacking, this
is actually part of a multifaceted campaign that the Russians mounted." Clapper
singled out Russian state funded TV channel RT, previously called Russia Today.
"Of course RT was very, very active in promoting a particular point of view,
disparaging our system."
[Full disclosure: I have been on RT numerous
times.]
Apart from the nonsense about foreign broadcasters being part of a
conspiracy to "disparage our system" and destroy our democracy, I confess that
I was willing to be convinced by what seemed to be the near-unanimous
intelligence and law enforcement agency verdict but, any such expectations
disappeared when the 17 page report on the hack was actually released on
Friday. Entitled
Declassified Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian Activities and
Intentions in Recent US Elections
, the report is an exercise in speculation
minus evidence indicting alleged Russian interference in the recent election.
It even came with a significant caveat, "Judgments are not intended to imply
that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."
So I am still waiting to see the actual evidence for the Russian direct
involvement and have to suspect that there is little to show, or possibly even
nothing. Saying that Russian government agents were employed in passing the
stolen emails from the DNC server to WikiLeaks raises more questions than it
answers, particularly as it is now clear from media leaks that the parties
involved were using what is referred to as cut-outs to break the chain of
custody of the material being passed. Does the intelligence community actually
know exactly who passed what to whom and when or is it engaged in
reconstructing what it think happened? Does it really believe that intercepted
unencrypted phone calls among Russian officials expressing pleasure over the
election result equate to an actual a priori conspiracy to determine the
outcome? And based on what evidence do they know that conspiracy was "ordered"
by President Vladimir Putin as is now being alleged? Or are the only assuming
that it must have been him because he is head of state?
... ... ...
When I was in Europe with CIA the U.S. government regularly interfered with elections,
particularly in Italy, Spain, France and Portugal, all of which had active communist parties. The
Agency would fund opposition parties directly or indirectly and would manage media coverage of
the relevant issues to favor the non-communists. The end result was that the communists were
indeed in most cases kept out of government but the resulting democracy was frequently corrupted
by the process. Italy in particular suffers from that corruption to this day.
The United States has directly interfered in Russia, using proxies, IMF loans and a media
controlled by the oligarchs to run the utterly incompetent Boris Yeltsin's successful campaign in
1996 and then continuing with more aggressive "democracy promotion" projects until Putin expelled
many of the NGOs responsible in 2015. More recently there have been the pastel revolutions in
Eastern Europe and the upheaval in Ukraine, which came about in part due to a $5 billion
investment by the United States government in "democracy building" supplemented by regular visits
from John McCain and the State Department's activist Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.
"... Referring to Putin and the Russian hackers, Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson contends: "Their hacking - as interpreted by both the CIA and the FBI - qualifies as state-sponsored aggression. It does jeopardize our way of life. It undermines the integrity of our political institutions and popular faith in them. More than this, it warns us that our physical safety and security are at risk. Hostile hackers can hijack power grids, communication networks, transportation systems and much more." [17] Even criticizing the position of the CIA-an institution American liberals, not too long ago, looked upon as a force for evil–is now considered a threat to American democracy. As establishment liberal E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post pontificates: "That Trump would happily trash our own CIA to get Putin off the hook is disturbing enough . . . . That he would ignore the risks our intelligence agents take on so many fronts to protect us is outrageous ..."
"... The Washington Post was enraged when, in 2015, Russia shut down the U.S. government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), relying on a law that "bans groups from abroad who are deemed a 'threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.'" The Washington Post wrote: "The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts." [20] Presumably, such things as "transparency in public affairs," fighting corruption, and "freedom of information," are vital for creating a "healthy democracy" in Russia when promoted by a foreign organization but are a grave danger to democracy if a foreign entity should try to do the same thing in the United States. ..."
"... The mainstream media has acted as if Russian efforts to influence American policy are something novel, that this had never happened to the U.S. before. And "policy" is used here rather than "election" because affecting policy is apparently Putin's motive, not simply putting Trump in the White House with U.S. policy toward Russian unchanged. It is quite understandable that Putin would view Trump as a better President from the standpoint of Russian interests than Hillary Clinton since Trump advocated improving relations with Russia while Clinton was oriented toward exacerbating them. ..."
"... In making major foreign policy decisions, Obama's modus operandi has often been one of reacting to pressure-usually, but not always, from elite opinion-which has caused him to take positions contrary to his own, often more non-interventionist and pacific, inclination. This seems to have been the case regarding Obama's policy toward Libya, Syria, Israel (his obeisance to the Israel Lobby until the very end of his presidency), and even Russia, where he initially sought a "reset" to achieve friendlier relations. ..."
"... By penalizing Russia, Obama makes it difficult for President Trump to establish a more cordial relationship with Russia. There is extensive support in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans for taking strong action against Russia. As the title of an article in Roll Call, which focuses on the activities of the U.S. Congress , puts it: "Obama's Russia Sanctions Put Trump, Hill GOP on Collision Course." The author of this article, John T. Bennett, opines that Trump's opposition to Obama's retaliation against Russia "will immediately pit him against the hawkish wing of the Republican party." [29] ..."
"... While Trump could overturn Obama's anti-Russian measures, which are based on an executive order, his doing so would almost certainly be countered by legislation put forth by Democrats and some Republicans-the latter led by McCain and Graham, who have already said that they will introduce Russian sanction legislation. ..."
"... To conclude, the Russian interference narrative did not serve to prevent Trump from becoming president but it does seem that it will cause serious problems for his presidency and for American foreign relations as well, as America will drift further into Cold War II, which is something that Trump, if not facing obstruction, could have possibly prevented. ..."
"... CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story ..."
"... It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! Nice Try Clinton News Network! ..."
"... Obama's petty and stupid response to the current unproven allegations against Russia will haunt his legacy and Hillary's bizarre contention that Putin personally "had it in for her" is yet another sign of her mental instability. ..."
The mainstream media's narrative that the Russian government interfered with the United States election,
and that this interference invalidated, or at least tainted, Trump's election has culminated in President
Obama taking a series of measures against Russia, which consist of: imposing sanctions on the GRU
and the FSB (the two major Russian intelligence organizations), four officers of the GRU, and two
Russian individuals who allegedly used "cyber-enabled means to cause misappropriation of funds and
personal identifying information;" expelling 35 diplomats and intelligence officials; and closing
two Russian compounds in Maryland's Eastern Shore and Long Island, New York. These actions were said
to have been taken not only because of Russian interference in the election but for a number of other
instances of Russian malfeasance that go back in time and are unrelated to alleged election interference.
And there was no evidence provided that showed, or even claimed to show, that the particular individuals
and entities covered by these measures had anything to do with the alleged election interference.
[1]
Like other common memes-such as anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism-used to silence debate, the
exact meaning of Russian interference in the election is unclear-and Obama's inclusion of a number
of extraneous issues in his explanation for taking retaliatory action against Russia muddles the
issue even more. The reference to Russian interference in the election includes a composite of alleged
Russian misdeeds-"fake news," computer hacking, and manipulating voting machines
[2] –which are usually lumped together but are actually quite different and should be analyzed
separately since the combination approach only serves to obfuscate the issue. Of course-and this
probably would not be shocking to most readers of this essay-many of those who promote the idea of
Russian culpability are not really concerned about pursuing a Socratic search for truth but instead
want to anathematize Putin's Russia and/or delegitimize Trump's election victory.
First, let me take care of the most extreme claim-that Russian hackers manipulated election results
to make Trump president. This would be a nearly impossible task since voting machines are not attached
to the Internet, and it was never pointed out how the Russians could do this on any significant scale.
[3] Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton was urged by "a group of prominent computer scientists and election
lawyers" to demand a recount in three states-Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-in which Clinton
seemed to be slightly ahead in pre-election polls but which were won by Trump by narrow margins.
The group claimed to have statistical evidence that the vote had been altered.
[4] The basis of this claim, however, was quite flimsy since it simply rested on an analysis
that showed that in Wisconsin counties with electronic voting machines, Clinton received 7 percent
fewer votes than in counties with paper ballots or optical scanners. It was then assumed that the
same thing could have occurred in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
There was a recount in Wisconsin in which Trump increased his victory margin by 131 votes; a total
of 2.976 million ballots were cast. The recount was requested by Green Party candidate Jill Stein
who covered the estimated $3.5 million cost of the endeavor.
[5] Similar efforts by Stein to get recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania were blocked in the
state courts because of her lack of standing by the laws of those states-not having any chance of
winning herself, she could not be considered an "aggrieved party." Hillary Clinton's campaign did
not make official efforts to get recounts in any states. With Trump's victory in Wisconsin surviving
the recount, he had garnered a majority of the electoral votes, which would make him President unless
there were a far higher number of faithless electors than turned out to be the case. Nonetheless,
half of Clinton's voters still think Russia hacked the election day voting.
[6]
Now to consider the ramifications of Russia's hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) and of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, and the reception and release to
the public of this Russian-hacked information by WikiLeaks. While this is assumed to be incontestably
true by the mainstream media, neither one of these allegations is rock solid at the moment. The alleged
consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies is that there is sufficient evidence that Russia hacked the
aforementioned emails, but the evidence for this has not been made available to the public nor is
there proof that WikiLeaks relied on emails derived from Russian hacks. Given the fact that America's
intelligence agencies are not noted for being honest with the public, one would think that the mainstream
media would give some attention to the critics of the dominant narrative.
Reacting to these allegations, WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, claims that his organization
did not release any information provided to it by Russia or a Russian proxy. And Assange does have
a vested interest in being truthful in order to maintain WikiLeaks' credibility, which has so far
been impeccable. Confirming Assange's contention is Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan
and a close associate of Assange, though not an official member of the WikiLeaks staff. Murray stated:
"As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained
countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks." He goes on to claim: "Now both Julian
Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access?
Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of
the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider
truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one
of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully
challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling." Murray alleges that the
two sets of emails-from the DNC and from Podesta–came from American insiders but from different sources.
[7]
Obviously, the security agencies should provide the public with detailed evidence and describe
the actual sources. As Pat Buchanan suggests: "The CIA director and his deputies should be made to
testify under oath, not only as to what they know about Russia's role in the WikiLeaks email dumps
but also about who inside the agency is behind the leaks to The Washington Post designed to
put a cloud over the Trump presidency before it begins."
[8]
Now it should be pointed out that the actual content of the emails released by WikiLeaks, which
the U.S. claims to have been obtained by Russian hacking, has not been falsified. The information
harmful to Hillary Clinton included the DNC's behind-the-scenes support for her over Bernie Sanders
(which included then DNC chair Donna Brazile's feeding answers to Clinton before the latter's debate
with Bernie Sanders); Clinton's unpublicized paid speeches-on foreign policy and the economy– to
wealthy business executives and bankers revealing views diametrically opposed to her campaign positions;
the collusion of mainstream media reporters with the DNC. For example, Washington Post columnist
Dana Milbank requested and got the DNC to do the research for a negative column he wrote about Trump.
ORDER IT NOW
If the WikiLeaks information were completely fallacious, it would not have been derived from hacking
or even from leaks, but simply fabricated. Nonetheless, this defense is being made. The logical form
of this argument is that hacking took place but that the released emails were doctored to make them
damaging. But this is based on the fact that it is possible to doctor emails, rather than any evidence
that the WikiLeaks' emails were altered. The assumption being made was that Russia was capable of
doctoring the emails, therefore, the emails must be doctored. For example, Jamie Winterton, director
of strategy for Arizona State University's Global Security Initiative, was quoted as saying: "I would
be shocked if the emails weren't altered," and went on to say that Russia was well-known to have
used this technique in the past.
ix Similarly, Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin asserted: "We are not going to confirm
the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who has made no secret of his desire
to damage Hillary Clinton." He referred to doctored emails that supposedly appeared on websites linked
to Russian intelligence as proof that "documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian
misinformation campaign," although Caplin did not say that the emails concerning Clinton's speeches
had been faked.
x According to James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, the spreading of false information by intelligence services "is a technique
that goes back to Tsarist times." Among his examples, he referred to the Soviet-spread rumor that
the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus. Needless to say, this, too, had nothing to do with
WikiLeaks much less the emails it released on Clinton and the DNC.
[11]
MSNBC's terrorist analyst and a former intelligence officer, Malcolm Nance, tweeted a message,
shortly after WikiLeaks' October release of some of Podesta's emails, that these emails were "riddled
with obvious forgeries," without ever providing evidence.
[12] If any emails released by WikiLeaks were "obvious forgeries," it would seem quite easy for
U.S. intelligence agencies to point this out without using any secret, super-high tech methods, and
thus substantiate the case being made.
Interestingly, Nance was also quoted as taking the opposite position: "We have no way of knowing
whether this is real or not unless Hillary Clinton goes through everything they've said and comes
out and says it cross-correlates and this is true."
[13] Here, Nance seems to be saying that WikiLeaks' could only be considered accurate if Hillary
would show this to be the case. Since Hillary is not going to indict herself, this is not going to
happen. However, the burden of proof should be on those who claim that the emails were altered to
point out the discrepancies between the emails released by WikiLeaks and the DNC's and Podesta's
actual emails. It would not be necessary to go through the whole tranche but simply focus on the
detrimental emails. If this is not done, then claims that the WikiLeaks provides specious information
should be dropped. So far, however, there seems to be little effort to show that the damaging information
was untrue.
[14]
Actually, it seems that much of the hostility to the WikiLeaks' information has little to do with
it being false but rather that the emails were pilfered and made public. Adam Schiff, a Democratic
congressman from California, who serves as the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, and Jane Harman, who is currently the president of the Wilson Center and a former
ranking Democratic member of the same House committee state: "Russia's theft and strategic leaking
of emails and documents from the Democratic Party and other officials present a challenge to the
U.S. political system unlike anything we've experienced."
[15] Note that these writers charge Russia not only with illicitly obtaining the emails but also
of "strategic leaking," which was obviously the work of WikiLeaks, and for which no evidence whatsoever
exists that Russia determined when the materials would be leaked.
The New York Times Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes that "[t]he pro-Putin
tilt of Mr. Trump and his advisers was obvious months before the election . . . . By midsummer the
close relationship between WikiLeaks and Russian intelligence was also obvious, as was the site's
growing alignment with white nationalists." Krugman goes on to blame the mainstream media for giving
attention to WikiLeaks. "Leaked emails, which everyone knew were probably the product of Russian
hacking, were breathlessly reported as shocking revelations, even when they mostly revealed nothing
more than the fact that Democrats are people."
[16] However, if nothing harmful was revealed, it is hard to maintain that Russian hacking had
a significant effect on the election. If harm were done to the Democrats, it was presumably caused
by the media, which falsely implied that serious revelations were being made by WikiLeaks.
Referring to Putin and the Russian hackers, Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson
contends: "Their hacking - as interpreted by both the CIA and the FBI - qualifies as state-sponsored
aggression. It does jeopardize our way of life. It undermines the integrity of our political institutions
and popular faith in them. More than this, it warns us that our physical safety and security are
at risk. Hostile hackers can hijack power grids, communication networks, transportation systems and
much more."
[17] Even criticizing the position of the CIA-an institution American liberals, not too long
ago, looked upon as a force for evil–is now considered a threat to American democracy. As establishment
liberal E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post pontificates: "That Trump would happily trash
our own CIA to get Putin off the hook is disturbing enough . . . . That he would ignore the risks
our intelligence agents take on so many fronts to protect us is outrageous .
[18]
Michael Daly of the liberal millennials–oriented "Daily Beast" writes: "Russians went from simply
gathering our secrets to then making them public in such a way as to influence American public opinion
and therefore the course of our democracy. Putin must marvel at the fervently patriotic, flag-waving
Americans who shrug at the near certainty that a foreign power had subverted the electoral process
that is at the heart of America's true greatness."
[19]
It is not apparent how receiving accurate information regarding political issues-which is what
WikiLeaks seems to have provided-could really have a negative impact on American democracy; rather
it would seem that it would actually improve democracy. The purpose of Voice of America is supposed
to be to provide such information to foreign countries and especially to those where the governments
prevent the facts from reaching their inhabitants. The idea is that people in foreign countries should
know the truth about their own government and about other governments, as well.
The Washington Post was enraged when, in 2015, Russia shut down the U.S. government-funded
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), relying on a law that "bans groups from abroad who are deemed
a 'threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense
capabilities and its national security.'" The Washington Post wrote: "The charge against the
NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society.
They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom
of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy
democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts."
[20] Presumably, such things as "transparency in public affairs," fighting corruption, and "freedom
of information," are vital for creating a "healthy democracy" in Russia when promoted by a foreign
organization but are a grave danger to democracy if a foreign entity should try to do the same thing
in the United States.
The mainstream media has acted as if Russian efforts to influence American policy are something
novel, that this had never happened to the U.S. before. And "policy" is used here rather than "election"
because affecting policy is apparently Putin's motive, not simply putting Trump in the White House
with U.S. policy toward Russian unchanged. It is quite understandable that Putin would view Trump
as a better President from the standpoint of Russian interests than Hillary Clinton since Trump advocated
improving relations with Russia while Clinton was oriented toward exacerbating them.
While the mainstream media implies that what Russia was allegedly attempting to do had never happened
before, foreign countries had actually tried to shape American policies since the George Washington
administration
[21] when the ambassador from revolutionary France, popularly known as Citizen Genet, came to
the United States in 1793 and sought to generate popular support to get the United States to modify
its strict neutrality policy to one that would be helpful to France in its war with Great Britain.
Genet even commissioned privateers to attack British shipping. Ultimately, however, President Washington
and his Cabinet, angered by Genet's activities that violated American sovereignty, demanded his recall.
Genet simultaneously fell from favor in France as more radical Jacobins led by Robespierre took power
and fearing he might face the guillotine if he returned to France, Genet requested and received asylum
in the United States.
In 1867-1868, the Russian ambassador to the U.S. resorted to bribing lobbyists, newspapers, and
members of Congress in order to make sure that the U.S. Congress would provide the funds for the
treaty already signed by Secretary of State Seward (and approved by the Senate) to purchase Alaska.
In World War I both Germany and England were relying heavily on propaganda in the U.S.-the British
goal to get the U.S. into the war on its side; the German goal to keep the U.S. out of the war. In
1917, Britain Illicitly intercepted and decoded what became known as the Zimmerman Telegram, which
was a message from the German foreign ministry to its ambassador in Mexico instructing him to inform
the Mexican government that Germany would, if the United States joined the war against it, support
a Mexican effort to regain its former territory taken by the United States (though technically purchased)
as a result of the Mexican-American War.
[22] After Britain turned the information over to the U.S. government, the publication of the
telegram in March 1917 may have played a supporting role in America's entrance into World War I in
April 1917.
In World War II, British intelligence closely cooperated with the Roosevelt administration and
the American interventionists-actually setting up pro-interventionist front groups–and engaged in
efforts to destroy the non-interventionists.
[23] Soviet agents were also trying to shape American foreign policy during World War II and
its aftermath in order to advance the interests of Stalinist Russia.
[24] And Israel (and the Zionist agency before Israel's founding) and its American supporters
have played a role in shaping America's policy in the Middle East policy since World War I.
[25]
Finally, let us explore the reasons for Obama's retaliation against the alleged Russian interference
in the election, which included activities-mostly, but not only, involving spying-that had been going
on for years. An obvious question is: why didn't Obama take action earlier?
It should be pointed out that it is commonplace for spies to pose as diplomats. And it is likewise
commonplace that a host country does nothing to stop the spying unless it goes too far or if the
host country wants to send a message that it is concerned about some other matter and does so by
expelling officials for spying who were not necessarily involved in the issue of concern. Obama's
expulsion edict fit the second category and was meant to show the U.S. government's ire regarding
the alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election.
[26] Therefore, Obama's retaliation against individuals and entities not involved in the matter
of concern was not unconventional and if there had not been any alleged interference in the U.S.
election, they likely would have been left alone.
Furthermore, it would appear that Obama chose to take action for political reasons: in order to
appeal to the Democratic base and the mainstream media, afflicted as those two groups are by Trump
Derangement Syndrome,
[27] and also to hardline opponents of Russia who loom large in the Republican Party and have
become a significant force among the Democratic elite (e.g. Brookings Institution).
In making major foreign policy decisions, Obama's modus operandi has often been one of reacting
to pressure-usually, but not always, from elite opinion-which has caused him to take positions contrary
to his own, often more non-interventionist and pacific, inclination. This seems to have been the
case regarding Obama's policy toward Libya, Syria, Israel (his obeisance to the Israel Lobby until
the very end of his presidency), and even Russia, where he initially sought a "reset" to achieve
friendlier relations.
Although it has been claimed that Obama had entertained issuing punitive measures against Russia
before the election, but opted against this to avoid possible Russian retaliation that could affect
the voting, it is not apparent that Obama would have taken comparable retaliatory action if Clinton
had won a clear-cut electoral victory.
[28] While Republican hardliners, such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, might have wanted such
action, the Democrats would be satisfied with their victory, and Clinton and her foreign policy advisers,
even though they might be anti-Putin, would not want their hands tied by such measures. While Obama
is not a fan of Hillary Clinton, he did want her to be his successor, since that would have made
him look good; there would have been no reason to antagonize her, her supporters, or the Democratic
Party elite.
By penalizing Russia, Obama makes it difficult for President Trump to establish a more cordial
relationship with Russia. There is extensive support in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans
for taking strong action against Russia. As the title of an article in Roll Call, which focuses
on the activities of the U.S. Congress , puts it: "Obama's Russia Sanctions Put Trump, Hill
GOP on Collision Course." The author of this article, John T. Bennett, opines that Trump's opposition
to Obama's retaliation against Russia "will immediately pit him against the hawkish wing of the Republican
party."
[29]
While Trump could overturn Obama's anti-Russian measures, which are based on an executive
order, his doing so would almost certainly be countered by legislation put forth by Democrats and
some Republicans-the latter led by McCain and Graham, who have already said that they will introduce
Russian sanction legislation. In the past few years, an overwhelming majority in Congress has
voted for sanctions legislation against Russia, which makes it likely that there would be a veto-proof
majority to stymie Trump on this issue.
[30]
To conclude, the Russian interference narrative did not serve to prevent Trump from becoming
president but it does seem that it will cause serious problems for his presidency and for American
foreign relations as well, as America will drift further into Cold War II, which is something that
Trump, if not facing obstruction, could have possibly prevented.
Great article, the key question remains: why is there an obsession for a large part of Washington
bipartisan elite to have a horrible relationship with Russia?
It is on its face self-defeating: Russia poses no real threat as a peaceful neighbor, it has lots
of resources and the largest consumer market in Europe. Russia is also generally secular, relative
socially liberal, and shares many of the same policies as US, e,g. fighting Islamic terrorism, checking
China's influence, etc
So why the hostility? It makes West weaker, not stronger. It hurts global economy, it increases
risks of a nuclear confrontation. It also cannot really achieve much beyond continued hostility and
shouting at each other.
Unless I am missing something, the hostility with Russia has no conceivable – and realistic
– final outcome . Russia is not about to collapse, and it is not about to revert to a Western-run
90′s 'liberal' utopia. Any actual and realistic threat to Russia's existence could trigger a nuclear
war – no winners there.
The disputes – from Crimea to Syria, from 'hacking' to Pussy Rioters – are oversimplified and
intentionally misrepresented by the West. All of these issues are more complex, less clear-cut, and
there is a valid and rational point of view on Russia's side.
So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there
some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?
Putin has reversed the Yeltsin era oligarchy that was bent on looting everything moveable in
Russia. In doing so he pissed off some very connected Americans and Israelis. They want to
get back to the loot trough. Sometimes it is as simple as evil men wanting to steal the wealth
of others and hating those who stop them. ,
Are you kidding? Russia represents everything the Anglo-Zionist empire hates and fears:
- Russia is sovereign and not under the control of financial interests. It is not possible
to financially strip-mine Russia. For example, the Russian central band keeps real interest
rates above 3%, allowing savers to keep the benefit of their savings, unlike in the West.
- The Russian state under Putin has overthrown financial oligarch control, and the people
know this. This accounts for his extraordinary popularity.
- Russia is a Christian country which has built or reopened an astounding 30,000 churches
in the last three years. They do not allow gay marriage and are about as socially conservative
as the US was in the 70's. Jews are not allowed to dominate the national conversation or have
inordinate control.
- Russia manufactures their own armaments and is a strong arms export competitor. The Russian
state gets much more bang for their armament buck than we do, being effectively equal to us
with 1/10 the military spending. This is more evidence of the independence of the state from
financial oligarchs. Currently, Russian jets and missiles are markedly superior to American
ones. (Don't believe me? Google "F-15's in Syria" The Pentagon responded to Russia bringing
advanced jets to Syria by transferring a squadron of F-15E's to Syria. The F-15 entered service
in 1974. Each successive generation of US fighter jets since then has had inferior performance
to its predecessor. This is disgraceful.)
- The very existence of Russian independence is a mortal threat to the evil Anglo-Zionist
empire. Look at Snowden, still walking and breathing and calling bullshit on American retrogression.
The existence of one free country holds out a dangerous example to all other nations. ,
You ask the question I've been asking myself. I don't have an answer, but I've wondered if
it could be any of these:
* inertia (the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I)
* anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)
* profits (the Military-Industrial Complex has settled on Russia as the threat that will justify
the weapons systems they want to sell)
* Europe (Russia is the only power that could draw away our European vassal states--the Germans
were particularly cozy with Putin right before Ukraine blew up; the Gulenist coup happened
just weeks after Erdogan got friendly with Russia)
* petroleum (can't quite see how that fits here, but oil and gas are usually involved in Deep
State machinations)
The backers of HRC seek global domination and they know that time is against them. They have
over-reached and now find themselves on the back foot. They are ruthless and desperate so this
is why their actions make little sense if viewed through the lens of what is good for the ZUSA.
,
There is a deep-seated, visceral need for an Enemy, that's the point. Any kind of an enemy.
At present the Flavor of The Month is Russia, with China waiting in the wings.
As a footnote--and I wish could remember his name-- but earlier this week O'Reilly had some
guy on his show who was a retired USMC "intelligence expert" who said in one breath that the
CIA had "proof" that the Rooshians hacked the emails then in the next breath said that the
CIA can't release the information as it would compromise their operatives. Yeah, right! ,
"So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there
some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?"
Many or perhaps most Washington elites, including Congressmen, US Supreme Court justices
(Kagan, Sotormayor, and Roberts), and the former president are sodomites and pederasts. President
Putin's refusal to celebrate their alternative deathstyle INFURIATES them.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the M-I complex faced a big problem: how
to maintain huge defense budgets when the main enemy had suddenly disappeared. Saddam's invasion
of Kuwait in August 1990 provided them with a temporary solution, as did 9-11. What we are
witnessing now is the latest chapter of this saga. Ross Perot was right: follow the money.
,
It depends on your point of view. From we schmucks who have to pay for it all, it's worse than
pointless. From the rulers' point of view, there are many of them as shown by the other replies.
To understand their points, here are a few primers.
Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child
here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial
rivalry? The real reason that the war that we have just finished took place was that
Germany was afraid her commercial rivals were going to get the better of her, and' the reason
why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get
the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated
hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry.
-Woodrow Wilson, Speech at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, on the Peace Treaty and
the League of Nations (5 September 1919)
In an effort to PREVENT the war that Churchill called "unnecessary," (WW2,) this 2 time
Medal of Honor recipient wrote...
" I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for
Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.
In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism."
Randolph Bourne left an unfinished, unpaginated draft of The State when he died during the
flu pandemic of 1918. The draft was published posthumously, with some material incorrectly
ordered, in Untimely Papers (1919). Nevertheless, The State , answers your question
in detail.
With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with
no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations,
the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision
with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war.
For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the
intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit
of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going
to war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of
a bigger role in the destiny of the world.
-Randolph Bourne, The State, From Untimely Papers (1919).
Same reason as for hostility toward Serbs! The Serbs did not pose any treat to the Washington
"elite", yet they were demonized and destroyed. It was the thirst for Serb blood, and it is
the thirst for Russian blood that is the driving force behind the polices of the Washington
"elite". Simply put: RUSSOPHOBIA. ,
"The Guardian's anti-Putin propaganda has gotten into the bizarre. The editors have lost
touch with sanity."
Why the insanity? - Money.
"The Guardian and Soros-connected New East Network run anti-Putin and anti-Russia propaganda
daily. There is no shortage of pro-Ukraine propaganda either. That propaganda spills over onto
the Guardian website. This is a sinister conflict of interest for the Guardian. It should make
a full disclosure of the financial arrangements between itself and Soros.
George Soros has made his fortune on currency speculation, regime change, coups and vulture
capitalism. His current venture of destruction is Ukraine. Soros financed NGO's that fueled
the US led coup against the elected government of Ukraine and installed a cabal of fascists.
Soros is a major backer of anti-Putin NGO's in Russia. Soros constantly lobbies the US and
the EU to bail out Ukraine with Billions of dollars, of which he would be a big beneficiary.
Soros lobbies the US and the EU to destabilize Russia, which again would benefit him in Billions
of dollars (here)."
Peace is not profitable for the warmongers and financial speculators.
Policy wonks reinforcing existing delusional ideology....for example....in September, the Atlantic
Council, a mainstream US geopolitical think tank, published a report that predicted a Hobbesian
world "marked by the breakdown of order, violent extremism [and] an era of perpetual war".
The new enemies were a "resurgent" Russia and an "increasingly aggressive" China. Only heroic
America can save us.
Two highly recommended reads:
The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World
The only part of the Washington elite that wants to treat Russia as no threat is the part
that articulates the views of corporations who want to sell US shale gas technology to Russia,
which will sell cheap and clean energy to China so they can destroy American manufacturing
jobs. The time has come to try and slow China's growth down. ,
Agree. "...the usual point of US foreign policy" is thievery of mineral resources and gold
reserves in the hapless countries that were selected to experience the US/NATO "humanitarian
interventions" and "democracy on the march"
Here is a great paper by Robert David Steele, "The Russians Did Not "Hack" the US Election
– a Few Facts from a Former CIA Spy:" http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-russians-did-not-hack-the-us-election-a-few-facts-from-a-former-cia-spy/5567215
Steele gives a well-deserved black eye to the "perfumed princess and princesses" at the
State Dept and CIA He simply calls them traitors. Refreshing.
"Steele served in the Marine Corps as an 0203 Ground Intelligence Officer. After serving
4 years he joined CIA where he served for 10 years (3 tours overseas focused on extremist
and terrorist targets). He resigned CIA to accept an invitation from the Marine Corps to
stand up the Marine Corps Intelligence Center...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_David_Steele
"What's the point?" I don't know but the usual point of US foreign policy is to let US corporations
win new markets.
The only part of the Washington elite that wants to treat Russia as no threat is the part that
articulates the views of corporations who want to sell US shale gas technology to Russia, which
will sell cheap and clean energy to China so they can destroy American manufacturing jobs. The
time has come to try and slow China's growth down.
Great article, the key question remains: why is there an obsession for a large part of Washington
bipartisan elite to have a horrible relationship with Russia?
It is on its face self-defeating: Russia poses no real threat as a peaceful neighbor, it has
lots of resources and the largest consumer market in Europe. Russia is also generally secular,
relative socially liberal, and shares many of the same policies as US, e,g. fighting Islamic terrorism,
checking China's influence, etc...
So why the hostility? It makes West weaker, not stronger. It hurts global economy, it increases
risks of a nuclear confrontation. It also cannot really achieve much beyond continued hostility
and shouting at each other.
Unless I am missing something, the hostility with Russia has no conceivable - and realistic
- final outcome . Russia is not about to collapse, and it is not about to revert to a Western-run
90's 'liberal' utopia. Any actual and realistic threat to Russia's existence could trigger a nuclear
war - no winners there.
The disputes - from Crimea to Syria, from 'hacking' to Pussy Rioters - are oversimplified and
intentionally misrepresented by the West. All of these issues are more complex, less clear-cut,
and there is a valid and rational point of view on Russia's side.
So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there
some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?
Putin has reversed the Yeltsin era oligarchy that was bent on looting everything moveable in
Russia. In doing so he pissed off some very connected Americans and Israelis. They want to get
back to the loot trough. Sometimes it is as simple as evil men wanting to steal the wealth of
others and hating those who stop them.
Are you kidding? Russia represents everything the Anglo-Zionist empire hates and fears:
- Russia is sovereign and not under the control of financial interests. It is not possible
to financially strip-mine Russia. For example, the Russian central band keeps real interest rates
above 3%, allowing savers to keep the benefit of their savings, unlike in the West.
- The Russian state under Putin has overthrown financial oligarch control, and the people know
this. This accounts for his extraordinary popularity.
- Russia is a Christian country which has built or reopened an astounding 30,000 churches in
the last three years. They do not allow gay marriage and are about as socially conservative as
the US was in the 70′s. Jews are not allowed to dominate the national conversation or have inordinate
control.
- Russia manufactures their own armaments and is a strong arms export competitor. The Russian
state gets much more bang for their armament buck than we do, being effectively equal to us with
1/10 the military spending. This is more evidence of the independence of the state from financial
oligarchs. Currently, Russian jets and missiles are markedly superior to American ones. (Don't
believe me? Google "F-15′s in Syria" The Pentagon responded to Russia bringing advanced jets to
Syria by transferring a squadron of F-15E's to Syria. The F-15 entered service in 1974. Each successive
generation of US fighter jets since then has had inferior performance to its predecessor. This
is disgraceful.)
- The very existence of Russian independence is a mortal threat to the evil Anglo-Zionist empire.
Look at Snowden, still walking and breathing and calling bullshit on American retrogression. The
existence of one free country holds out a dangerous example to all other nations.
I am not 'kidding', I am quite serious. You make good points - and the points about resources,
obedience and pure anger at losing the 90's opportunity to steal, all of that is true. But
it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in
Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
It also clearly doesn't work, and it cannot work - one cannot wish reality away and Russia
is not going to be defeated by these silly temper tantrums. I am assuming that we are dealing
with grown-up, serious people in Washington (and Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London), they must
know that the screaming and demonization do nothing to weaken Russia. If this is an infantile
anger at recent setbacks, it will blow over. But I would think that advanced Western societies
have their resident infantilism under control. (Or do they?)
So what if this is not just infantile screaming by people who lost their toys and want to
show their anger. What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today? What if they
genuinely lost it and truly believe all this insane stuff: "Putin wanted to influence the
sacred election - it is an act of war!!!!" - where would you even start a rational discussion
on this?
Civilizations collapse when their rational core is replaced by ambitious morons who can
no longer tell the difference between reality and their own "narrative", and even worse they
don't much care for reality. ,
Are you kidding? Russia represents everything the Anglo-Zionist empire hates and fears:
- Russia is sovereign and not under the control of financial interests. It is not possible
to financially strip-mine Russia. For example, the Russian central band keeps real interest
rates above 3%, allowing savers to keep the benefit of their savings, unlike in the West.
- The Russian state under Putin has overthrown financial oligarch control, and the people
know this. This accounts for his extraordinary popularity.
- Russia is a Christian country which has built or reopened an astounding 30,000 churches
in the last three years. They do not allow gay marriage and are about as socially conservative
as the US was in the 70's. Jews are not allowed to dominate the national conversation or have
inordinate control.
- Russia manufactures their own armaments and is a strong arms export competitor. The Russian
state gets much more bang for their armament buck than we do, being effectively equal to us
with 1/10 the military spending. This is more evidence of the independence of the state from
financial oligarchs. Currently, Russian jets and missiles are markedly superior to American
ones. (Don't believe me? Google "F-15's in Syria" The Pentagon responded to Russia bringing
advanced jets to Syria by transferring a squadron of F-15E's to Syria. The F-15 entered service
in 1974. Each successive generation of US fighter jets since then has had inferior performance
to its predecessor. This is disgraceful.)
- The very existence of Russian independence is a mortal threat to the evil Anglo-Zionist
empire. Look at Snowden, still walking and breathing and calling bullshit on American retrogression.
The existence of one free country holds out a dangerous example to all other nations.
I am not 'kidding', I am quite serious. You make good points – and the points about resources,
obedience and pure anger at losing the 90′s opportunity to steal, all of that is true. But
it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in
Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
It also clearly doesn't work, and it cannot work – one cannot wish reality away and Russia
is not going to be defeated by these silly temper tantrums. I am assuming that we are dealing
with grown-up, serious people in Washington (and Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London), they must
know that the screaming and demonization do nothing to weaken Russia. If this is an infantile
anger at recent setbacks, it will blow over. But I would think that advanced Western societies
have their resident infantilism under control. (Or do they?)
So what if this is not just infantile screaming by people who lost their toys and want to
show their anger. What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today? What if they
genuinely lost it and truly believe all this insane stuff: "Putin wanted to influence the
sacred election – it is an act of war!!!!" – where would you even start a rational discussion
on this?
Civilizations collapse when their rational core is replaced by ambitious morons who can
no longer tell the difference between reality and their own "narrative", and even worse they
don't much care for reality.
But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational
hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries
in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination
(and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation
to me. ,
"But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility
in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?"
I am glad you are persistent in asking these questions and being satisfied by answers
being offered. I do not have answer either. But I may ask more questions.
What was the true objective of 2009 Reset? Was it trap? Who really sabotaged it?
Perhaps we must go back to 2009 and the Reset that Hillary and Obama started with
Russia. In Sept. 2009 Obama cancelled the defensive shield in Poland and Czech Republic
and then in April 2010 they signed START treaty in Prague. What Obama wanted to get from
Russia in return? What else Russia wanted? Or was it trap? But the relations remained
good even after Polish president and all Polish NATO generals got killed in Smolensk
in April 2010 three days after signing the START treaty.
There are various theories about the crash in Smolensk. One of them is that it was
a false flag intending to implicate Russia and destroy the Reset and possibly it was
a part of a coup against Putin.
Who was behind it? The hawks and neocons (in cooperation with Russia's GRU elements)
wanted to proceed with the operation against Iran while Obama and Putin were against
it? After Smolensk the de facto no-fly zone was imposed over the whole Europe (Eyjafjallajökull
volcano) when perhaps the fate of relationship with Russia and perhaps the fate of the
world was being decided. Did Putin find out who was really behind the Smolensk crash?
Anyway the Reset was then preserved. Who had to bend over backwards more: Obama or Putin?
In later part of 2010 a major shake up in GRU took place and several generals ended up
having accidents and some units of GRU were reassigned to FSB.
Things started going sour in 2012 when the operation in Libya started. Medvedev who
was then a president must have been asleep at the switch and did not veto it in UN. Putin
watched the video of Qaddafi being murdered several times and allegedly vowed to never
let anything like this happen again. He also became president that year, The US was meddling
in the election process against him. In parallel with Libya the operation in Syria started.
Fighters and weapons were moved between the two countries. It was happening as if against
the will of Obama. In Sept. 2013 Putin kind of saved Obama's ass who clearly did not
want to go ahead with bombing of Syria by having Assad giving up his chemical weapons.
Neocons were furious.
One reason I am very interested in this is because I am looking for reasons to like
Obama. And Syria in 2013 might be one of these reasons. But after that not much has changed.
Money and support for rebels was flowing from the US and other countries. This tells
you that the colossus like America has its momentum and policies that will not easily
change regardless of will and beliefs of some people in power. Hersh wrote article on
how gen. Dempsey and DIA was sabotaging CIA in Syria by sending defective weapon supplies
to rebels supposedly to gain credibility in the eyes of Assad to keep the communication
channels open with Damascus via Berlin, Tel Aviv and Moscow.
Then in 2014 the anti-Russian coup was engineered in Ukraine (some thing it was neocon's
revenge for Putin's meddling in their meddling in Syria) that forced Russia to annex
Crimea. He had no choice. And this is how Putin became a new Stalin and Hitler. The war
against Putin and Putin's Russia was in the open.
In winter 2014/2015 a brand new project called IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh was unveiled with
saturated media campaign of their self-advertised atrocities. I think that many videos
of executions were staged. And what was their purpose? It allowed the US to create a
coalition to start bombing the ISIS also in Syria. Lots of countries joined it: Denmark,
Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and later Australia in 2015 and France. But their bombings
were anemic at least as ISIS in Syria was concerned. Did they bomb Syrian forces? The
coalition did not have a mandate for the no-fly zone as they had in Libya that if they
had it, it would finish Assad off.
I like to think that the next stage in attempt to escalate crisis in Syria was the
refugee crisis in 2015. Somebody organized it. Somebody cut off UN funding to refugee
camps in Turkey. Somebody took care of logistics. Lots of money. Maps to Germany in Arabic.
It was not Germany doing it, was it? Was it to get the public opinion of Europe behind
the final solution of Syrian crisis by destroying Assad? Would the escalation in Syria
where Iranian troops were fighting destroy the deal Obama was working with Iran? Was
Merkel's decision to embrace the invaders a way to diffuse the crisis and avert calls
for no-fly zone? Did her decision give Putin extra few weeks to prepare Russia's engagement
in Syria?
Did Trump in June 2015 know about the impeding refugee crisis in Europe. His speech
about illegals, border and wall preceded pictures of marching columns of young men approaching
Hungarian and then Slovenian (Melania's home country) borders by about six weeks. Who
was Trump's source? Our military or Netanyahu? Those who engineered that crisis?
In all this it beats me what was Netanyahu's role. Surely he wanted to attack Iran.
Surely he wanted to have Syria destroyed and destabilized. So why he was so nice to Putin?
What took place between him and Putin in Moscow in summer 2015? Then he went there two
more times. A bromance? Why Israel was so obliging to Russia engagement in Syria in which
Russia used small and inferior force? Just four dozens of planes with one dozen of fighter
planes while Israel itself has over 400 F-15 and F-16 and Turkey over 200?
Why are they so afraid of Putin? What kind of goods Putin has on them? Certainly it
is not because of Russia's military strength. ,
"What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today?"
It is a vicious hatred of expropriators towards any resistance to their thieving-thuggish
advances. They want these mineral resources now. They want this gold reserve now. The
cognitive cacophony among the "deciders" is beyond comprehension: they are afraid of
truth like vampires are afraid of light. This seems like a consequence of weeding out
the principled and competent among the highest echelons of US government. Instead, as
the propornot story shows, there is a triumph of DC career opportunists who would say
anything and would do anything to get their money and to maintain their power. Rather
scary.
You ask the question I've been asking myself. I don't have an answer, but I've wondered if
it could be any of these:
* inertia (the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I)
* anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)
* profits (the Military-Industrial Complex has settled on Russia as the threat that will justify
the weapons systems they want to sell)
* Europe (Russia is the only power that could draw away our European vassal states–the Germans
were particularly cozy with Putin right before Ukraine blew up; the Gulenist coup happened just
weeks after Erdogan got friendly with Russia)
* petroleum (can't quite see how that fits here, but oil and gas are usually involved in Deep
State machinations)
I am not 'kidding', I am quite serious. You make good points - and the points about resources,
obedience and pure anger at losing the 90's opportunity to steal, all of that is true. But it
really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington.
Why escalate now? What has changed?
It also clearly doesn't work, and it cannot work - one cannot wish reality away and Russia
is not going to be defeated by these silly temper tantrums. I am assuming that we are dealing
with grown-up, serious people in Washington (and Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London), they must know
that the screaming and demonization do nothing to weaken Russia. If this is an infantile anger
at recent setbacks, it will blow over. But I would think that advanced Western societies have
their resident infantilism under control. (Or do they?)
So what if this is not just infantile screaming by people who lost their toys and want to show
their anger. What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today? What if they genuinely
lost it and truly believe all this insane stuff: "Putin wanted to influence the sacred election
- it is an act of war!!!!" - where would you even start a rational discussion on this?
Civilizations collapse when their rational core is replaced by ambitious morons who can no longer
tell the difference between reality and their own "narrative", and even worse they don't much care
for reality.
But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility
in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in
Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps
an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.
"fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area"
Clearly that is the strategic goal. But it has already succeeded in Syria - it doesn't matter
that Assad is staying, Syria is fragmented. Since the goal has been achieved, why would the
symbolic defeat in Aleppo trigger this level of hostility?
I agree about gays, that is a secondary driver for the hate campaign. They are a derivative
ally.
The problem with the Brzezinski explanation is that it only partially fits the facts: the
early Obama administration genuinely tried to have better relations with Russia. And Brzezinski
for all his Russo-phobic reputation is actually a realist and has spoken out against the excesses
in the last few years. There is the usual 'neo-con grandkids of pogrom refugees' - yes, many
are, but there are also many who are from the same background who are not obsessive Russia
haters, often just the opposite.
"the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I"
There are some old Cold Warriors and some still angry at Vietcong (McCain), but the recent
energy in the Attack-Russia crowd comes from the younger people - often millennials and recent
Ivy League graduates in the media and in Washington. They are post Cold War and their hatred
seems fresh and genuine. How does one explain that phenomenon?
The military spending goes on and on - the need for an excuse is hard to document. There
is almost no chance that some program would get cancelled because there are not "sufficient
enemies" - so that explanation also seems secondary.
It is a puzzle, there doesn't seem to exist any adequate explanation. Maybe it really is
just stupidity - ambitious people who are where they are because they know how to take tests,
how to write 'memos', and how to please their elders. But they don't know or care about much
else. It is an elevated form of shallowness and mental lazyness. But it remains a puzzle. How
can an advanced society drop its intellectual standards so quickly? ,
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries
in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination
(and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to
me.
The foaming-at-the-mouth Russophobia and the Victoria Nuland & CIA-orchestrated coup in the
Ukraine occurred after Russia intervened in Syria re: the red line issue (and chemical attack
staged by Turks and CIA). ,
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries
in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination
(and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to
me.
The foaming-at-the-mouth Russophobia and the Victoria Nuland & CIA-orchestrated coup in the
Ukraine occurred after Russia intervened in Syria re: the red line issue (and chemical attack
staged by Turks and CIA).
In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way
to whip up some popular liberal support for it.
Cato's approach of looking for a range of reasons is clearly the right one, since there is
no one authority driving policy, but rather a range of groups whose interests converge in one
policy direction on a particular issue. This is true for any substantial state and for any
sufficiently significant policy area, and especially so for US foreign policy. Looking for
one single reason why any major policy direction is pursued is futile.
As such, the homosexual lobby is clearly one of the forces driving anti-Russian policy in
US sphere countries, if not necessarily the most powerful. I think it should not be too blithely
underestimated, though, as a part of the general globalist/antinationalist/social radical ideological
alliance that dominates the US sphere media and political high ground.
That said, you are clearly also correct that US regime frustration with Russian involvement
in defeating their regime change project in Syria is also clearly very significant, although
anti-Russian sentiment in the US regime long predates that particular issue.
I think these remarks from Frances Boyle are worth considering, as well, although this sometimes
sounds like it might have been translated from English into Russian and back again, or something
of that sort:
I regret to say what we are seeing here in the Unites States are the ascendancy of two factions
in this country who are against Russia and the Russians. First is Brzezinski, who was Obama's
mentor when Obama was a college student in Columbia, and Brzezinski in 2008 ran all the foreign
affairs and defence policies of the Obama presidential campaign and has stacked his administration
with advisor on Russia at the National Security Council comes from the Brzezinski's outpoll
CSIS there in Washington D.C. I graduated from the same Ph.D. programme at Harvard that produced
Brzezinski before me.
He is a die-hard Russian hater, he hates Russia, he hates the Russian, and he wants to break
Russia up into its constituent units, and, unfortunately, he has his people, his proteges in
the Democratic Party and in this Administration. Second faction lining against Russia are the
neo-conservatives, for e.g. this latest Brookings Institute report calling for arming the Ukrainian
military in these Nazi formations which is now reflected in this latest bill just introduced
into the Congress yesterday, and the neoconservatives feel exactly the same way against Russia
and the Russians.
I went to school with large numbers of these neoconservatives at the University of Chicago,
Wolfowitz and all the rest of them. Many of them are grandchildren of Jewish people, who fled
the pogroms against Jews, and they have been brainwashed against Russia and the Russians. So
you have two very powerful factions here in the United States against Russia and the Russians
who are driving this policy, and I regret to report there are very few voices opposing this.
Obama and his professional disinformation minions concocted a Russia-hacking-DNC BS story to
rationalize to the public their desires to punish Russia for thwarting their evil plans in Ukraine
and Syria.
Who comprise about half of those who voted on Nov. 8.
I have found it hard to reserve even shallow attention for the hacking/interference allegations,
never mind apply deep reasoning to it. So I appreciate pieces like this.
I have assumed from the get-go that these narratives' sole purpose was for the Dems--or
more specifically their funders/puppetmasters--to stay in the headlines by any means necessary.
"Stay in the headlines" means "work the system to maintain the position to keep telling stories."
As any PR or advertising or marketing specialist can tell you, the most important part of a
PR or ad or marketing campaign is to stay on message. The message doesn't have to make sense
or be true, because its mere repetition is the point, not its content.
These stories serve to keep that voter base paying attention and emotionally mobilized.
The stories don't have to make sense or be true. This isn't reason playing out, it's secular-religious
hysteria.
The Dems appeal to a chunk of the electorate that operates from emotionalism, messianic
zeal that flips over to destructive rage, virtue signaling, and a desire to feel like heroes
for rebelling against whatever whatever.
But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility
in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in
Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps
an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.
"fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area"
Clearly that is the strategic goal. But it has already succeeded in Syria – it doesn't matter
that Assad is staying, Syria is fragmented. Since the goal has been achieved, why would the symbolic
defeat in Aleppo trigger this level of hostility?
I agree about gays, that is a secondary driver for the hate campaign. They are a derivative
ally.
The problem with the Brzezinski explanation is that it only partially fits the facts: the early
Obama administration genuinely tried to have better relations with Russia. And Brzezinski for
all his Russo-phobic reputation is actually a realist and has spoken out against the excesses
in the last few years. There is the usual 'neo-con grandkids of pogrom refugees' – yes, many are,
but there are also many who are from the same background who are not obsessive Russia haters,
often just the opposite.
"the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I"
There are some old Cold Warriors and some still angry at Vietcong (McCain), but the recent
energy in the Attack-Russia crowd comes from the younger people – often millennials and recent
Ivy League graduates in the media and in Washington. They are post Cold War and their hatred seems
fresh and genuine. How does one explain that phenomenon?
The military spending goes on and on – the need for an excuse is hard to document. There is
almost no chance that some program would get cancelled because there are not "sufficient enemies"
– so that explanation also seems secondary.
It is a puzzle, there doesn't seem to exist any adequate explanation. Maybe it really is just
stupidity – ambitious people who are where they are because they know how to take tests, how to
write 'memos', and how to please their elders. But they don't know or care about much else. It
is an elevated form of shallowness and mental lazyness. But it remains a puzzle. How can an advanced
society drop its intellectual standards so quickly?
Clearly that is the strategic goal. But it has already succeeded in Syria – it doesn't
matter that Assad is staying, Syria is fragmented. Since the goal has been achieved,
why would the symbolic defeat in Aleppo trigger this level of hostility?
I was thinking of "now" in terms of a larger time-frame, going back at least to the Sochi
olympics, which is when I started to especially take notice of the anti-Russia rhetoric.
So I wasn't thinking of Aleppo specifically, but going back to Russia's negotiation to thwart
an attack on Syria in response to the chemical attack which was being blamed on the Syrian
government. That seems to be when things really started heating up.
Syria is fragmented, but it's not over yet. I think it may be made more whole in the
future. Additionally, it hasn't been fragmented to the extent originally desired.
And there must be some anger that Russia would step in and intervene at all, even if
much of what was desired has already been accomplished.
Brzezinski has at times expressed more moderate opinions, but most of what I've seen,
even in recent years, has been quite anti-Russian. Maybe I've missed some statements, but
what I've seen from him has been pretty consistent in treating the situation in the Ukraine
as a case of Russian aggression, deserving sanctions at least. And the "reset" under Obama
I would need to go back and look at more closely. Is it possible it was a feint of some
sort? I have to admit I wasn't following US-Russian policy very closely at the time.
And I'm not sure about the bitter Jewish pogrom-survivor angle. I don't know enough about
that history or what the average intellectual with Russian Jewish ancestry thinks about
Russia.
[B]ut the recent energy in the Attack-Russia crowd comes from the younger people – often
millennials and recent Ivy League graduates in the media and in Washington. They are
post Cold War and their hatred seems fresh and genuine. How does one explain that phenomenon?
This may be lazy but I'd say that in many cases it's because it's the Zionist line right
now. The LGBT angle also makes it easy to whip up opposition toward Russia. In general,
Russia has come to represent in many westerners' minds the anti-liberal. ,
It is a puzzle, there doesn't seem to exist any adequate explanation. Maybe it really
is just stupidity – ambitious people who are where they are because they know how to
take tests, how to write 'memos', and how to please their elders.
One interpretation might be that American capitalism is based upon the need for constant
expansion and in the course of that expansion obstacles along the way must be overcome.
If it can no longer grow and expand it'll implode upon itself. This is the inner dynamic
forcing it's outward movement. Russia has risen from the wreckage of twenty-five years ago
and is now ascendant and represents a barrier. It has sabotaged US schemes in Ukraine and
Syria and is asserting it's own sphere of interest. An implosion of the US balloon would
be disastrous since there is no ethnic, political or cultural cohesiveness within it to
soften the impact.
The leadership has become divorced from everyday reality. Most are theorists with no real-world
experience and all come out of the same 3-4 universities. In late stage empires that crumble
the leadership class are often absorbed in petty rivalries, become decadent hedonists and
distrust their own population. Incompetent and uncaring, they're prone to rashness and taking
the empire down with them. The US seems to be at that point.
Whatever they did or didn't do, Trump has been made to look small, and that is the one thing
he cannot stand. Putin will soon be wishing that Hillary had won.
So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are
there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?
War, cold or hot, sells weapons. The warmongers own the politicians. You've never figured this
out?
The insanity continues as "liberal" Senator Chuck Schumer (D-Israel) suggested that the Intelligence
agencies will "get back" at President Trump, and that all Americans should praise their secret
and mostly illegal, unconstitutional, and inhuman efforts. The few remaining true progressives/liberals
in America must have gagged at his comments.
The backers of HRC seek global domination and they know that time is against them. They have
over-reached and now find themselves on the back foot. They are ruthless and desperate so this
is why their actions make little sense if viewed through the lens of what is good for the ZUSA.
If Russian hackers did not exist, it would be necessary for the CIA to invent them. The Empire's
geopolitical agenda of putting Russia in its place is thereby advanced, the truth of the allegations
is irrelevent.
That Trump is a Russian agent is a big fat stupid naked lie riding on the back of an even bigger
lie. The lie that Russia is a threat to the U.S. Its a pity that so many man hours must be devoted
to refuting it. The lie is perpetrated by imperialists who intend to rule the world by force of
arms. They are psychotic and extremely dangerous to the people of earth. Bubba, Dubya and Obama
have been happy to serve them. Hillary was to be the fourth horseman.
The fourth horseman is mentioned in Revelation 6:8, "I looked, and there before me was a pale
horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. "
Trump is not an imperialist. He is not one of them. He is his own man. He is a nationalist.
He would be a player in a multi-polar world. He is a threat to their insane plans. They have tried
and are trying to neutralize him with lies and slander and have failed. Now they must deal with
him or martyr him. Which will it be?
I have read with interest the various explanations about why the United States's foreign policy
seems so pointlessly anti-Russian. There are a lot of reasons, ably articulated by the commenters.
It seems to me that, to put it bluntly, the United States, or at least a good portion of its leadership,
is in the midst of a national nervous breakdown, brought on by Donald Trump's unexpected election.
I would counsel Russia and its leadership to be very careful in dealing with the U.S. -- you
simply can't tell what an irrational person/nation might do.
Allow me to propose another cause for the mysterious Anglo-Zionist hostility toward Russia.
That is, the instability of the empire. The huge military spending supports the Petrodollar
system. The petrodollar system keeps the dollar as reserve currency. Then dollar creation by the
federal reserve taxes all users of the dollar, or the world. This tax helps finance the military
spending. And so on, ad infinitum. This positive feedback loop holds the status quo in the current
state.
But if the petrodollar system is broken, the US will have to pay its own way. The US tax cows
would rebel, then bye bye to the empire. Imagine if Germany and Russia joined in a trade zone,
let alone a gold standard union. The US standard of living would drop like a rock overnight. We'd
have to relearn to produce stuff. Perhaps US oligarchs would lose control in the resulting social
disruption.
So to avoid this scenario, the US deep state whips up anti-Russian hysteria aimed at both US
and European sheeple.
Great comment. It's worth noting, though, that the US standard of living in the intermediate
to long run would not drop for the middle and working classes. It's the looter class (and their
clients in the underclass and the bureaucracies to serve them) which would lose out in a really
big way.
Well they couldn't put the Pantsuit into the President suite. Even when they got the best
bunch of ducks in a row ever! Almost the perfect storm of idiots all in sink to force or cram
the worst of the evils, two or more) even against unlikely DT, and with the PTB & company jumping
ship from the Republicans enmasse, still they got beat.
The Democrats almost had the thing, But they are myopic special issue, (needs) Identity politics
people, and not of sufficient caliber to be involved in international diplomacy etc.
I see several commenters have mentioned dumb and stupid, as reasons, I agree, these nitwits
are way out of their element, and as to why they pick on Russia now, because they are naive enough
to think they can snub, insult, push with impunity, and they seem to be getting away with it.
But they hurt America, for having such low grade fools representing it. A bunch of cretinous egotists
who are run secretly by puppeteers, and backed up by brute force.
"But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility
in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?"
I am glad you are persistent in asking these questions and being satisfied by answers being
offered. I do not have answer either. But I may ask more questions.
What was the true objective of 2009 Reset? Was it trap? Who really sabotaged it?
Perhaps we must go back to 2009 and the Reset that Hillary and Obama started with Russia. In
Sept. 2009 Obama cancelled the defensive shield in Poland and Czech Republic and then in April
2010 they signed START treaty in Prague. What Obama wanted to get from Russia in return? What
else Russia wanted? Or was it trap? But the relations remained good even after Polish president
and all Polish NATO generals got killed in Smolensk in April 2010 three days after signing the
START treaty.
There are various theories about the crash in Smolensk. One of them is that it was a false
flag intending to implicate Russia and destroy the Reset and possibly it was a part of a coup
against Putin.
Who was behind it? The hawks and neocons (in cooperation with Russia's GRU elements) wanted
to proceed with the operation against Iran while Obama and Putin were against it? After Smolensk
the de facto no-fly zone was imposed over the whole Europe (Eyjafjallajökull volcano) when perhaps
the fate of relationship with Russia and perhaps the fate of the world was being decided. Did
Putin find out who was really behind the Smolensk crash? Anyway the Reset was then preserved.
Who had to bend over backwards more: Obama or Putin? In later part of 2010 a major shake up in
GRU took place and several generals ended up having accidents and some units of GRU were reassigned
to FSB.
Things started going sour in 2012 when the operation in Libya started. Medvedev who was then
a president must have been asleep at the switch and did not veto it in UN. Putin watched the video
of Qaddafi being murdered several times and allegedly vowed to never let anything like this happen
again. He also became president that year, The US was meddling in the election process against
him. In parallel with Libya the operation in Syria started. Fighters and weapons were moved between
the two countries. It was happening as if against the will of Obama. In Sept. 2013 Putin kind
of saved Obama's ass who clearly did not want to go ahead with bombing of Syria by having Assad
giving up his chemical weapons. Neocons were furious.
One reason I am very interested in this is because I am looking for reasons to like Obama.
And Syria in 2013 might be one of these reasons. But after that not much has changed. Money and
support for rebels was flowing from the US and other countries. This tells you that the colossus
like America has its momentum and policies that will not easily change regardless of will and
beliefs of some people in power. Hersh wrote article on how gen. Dempsey and DIA was sabotaging
CIA in Syria by sending defective weapon supplies to rebels supposedly to gain credibility in
the eyes of Assad to keep the communication channels open with Damascus via Berlin, Tel Aviv and
Moscow.
Then in 2014 the anti-Russian coup was engineered in Ukraine (some thing it was neocon's revenge
for Putin's meddling in their meddling in Syria) that forced Russia to annex Crimea. He had no
choice. And this is how Putin became a new Stalin and Hitler. The war against Putin and Putin's
Russia was in the open.
In winter 2014/2015 a brand new project called IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh was unveiled with saturated
media campaign of their self-advertised atrocities. I think that many videos of executions were
staged. And what was their purpose? It allowed the US to create a coalition to start bombing the
ISIS also in Syria. Lots of countries joined it: Denmark, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and later
Australia in 2015 and France. But their bombings were anemic at least as ISIS in Syria was concerned.
Did they bomb Syrian forces? The coalition did not have a mandate for the no-fly zone as they
had in Libya that if they had it, it would finish Assad off.
I like to think that the next stage in attempt to escalate crisis in Syria was the refugee
crisis in 2015. Somebody organized it. Somebody cut off UN funding to refugee camps in Turkey.
Somebody took care of logistics. Lots of money. Maps to Germany in Arabic. It was not Germany
doing it, was it? Was it to get the public opinion of Europe behind the final solution of Syrian
crisis by destroying Assad? Would the escalation in Syria where Iranian troops were fighting destroy
the deal Obama was working with Iran? Was Merkel's decision to embrace the invaders a way to diffuse
the crisis and avert calls for no-fly zone? Did her decision give Putin extra few weeks to prepare
Russia's engagement in Syria?
Did Trump in June 2015 know about the impeding refugee crisis in Europe. His speech about illegals,
border and wall preceded pictures of marching columns of young men approaching Hungarian and then
Slovenian (Melania's home country) borders by about six weeks. Who was Trump's source? Our military
or Netanyahu? Those who engineered that crisis?
In all this it beats me what was Netanyahu's role. Surely he wanted to attack Iran. Surely
he wanted to have Syria destroyed and destabilized. So why he was so nice to Putin? What took
place between him and Putin in Moscow in summer 2015? Then he went there two more times. A bromance?
Why Israel was so obliging to Russia engagement in Syria in which Russia used small and inferior
force? Just four dozens of planes with one dozen of fighter planes while Israel itself has over
400 F-15 and F-16 and Turkey over 200?
Why are they so afraid of Putin? What kind of goods Putin has on them? Certainly it is not
because of Russia's military strength.
I'm not a fan of assigning human motivations (like revenge) to institutions (like the US
establishment), but if I was trying to explain the recent escalations by the revenge motive,
then I would probably put sheltering Snowden front and center.
I don't think the crash in Smolensk is an issue; it has always been clear what happened
there, and it's nothing sinister. ,
In general outline, this is pretty close to how I see it. I remember realizing that ISIS/Daesh
was being used as an excuse to go into Syria. I don't think I realized immediately that
it was also just another proxy force used to overthrow Assad. So, typically, it was used
for two purposes, just as Al Qaeda has been used to target governments the US wants to weaken,
while also being blamed for attacks on western interests (9/11 being the most spectacular)
and used as an excuse for war. It's an elegantly multi-purpose operation. ,
So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are
there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?
I think these remarks from Frances Boyle are worth considering, as well, although this sometimes
sounds like it might have been translated from English into Russian and back again, or something
of that sort:
I regret to say what we are seeing here in the Unites States are the ascendancy of two factions
in this country who are against Russia and the Russians. First is Brzezinski, who was Obama's
mentor when Obama was a college student in Columbia, and Brzezinski in 2008 ran all the foreign
affairs and defence policies of the Obama presidential campaign and has stacked his administration
with advisor on Russia at the National Security Council comes from the Brzezinski's outpoll
CSIS there in Washington D.C. I graduated from the same Ph.D. programme at Harvard that produced
Brzezinski before me.
He is a die-hard Russian hater, he hates Russia, he hates the Russian, and he wants to break
Russia up into its constituent units, and, unfortunately, he has his people, his proteges in
the Democratic Party and in this Administration. Second faction lining against Russia are the
neo-conservatives, for e.g. this latest Brookings Institute report calling for arming the Ukrainian
military in these Nazi formations which is now reflected in this latest bill just introduced
into the Congress yesterday, and the neoconservatives feel exactly the same way against Russia
and the Russians.
I went to school with large numbers of these neoconservatives at the University of Chicago,
Wolfowitz and all the rest of them. Many of them are grandchildren of Jewish people, who fled
the pogroms against Jews, and they have been brainwashed against Russia and the Russians. So
you have two very powerful factions here in the United States against Russia and the Russians
who are driving this policy, and I regret to report there are very few voices opposing this.
Wally, I was just quoting what Francis Boyle had to say, not necessarily endorsing every
part of it. I don't know that much about Russian history. (Sorry, I don't know much about
anything.) As for the 6,000,000, yeah, it's very dubious, to put it mildly. I have serious
doubts about the official Holocaust story, but I haven't dug into it enough to make a strong
assertion about it one way or another. I'll just say the arguments against it are much stronger
than I ever expected before I started looking.
Agree with most reasons given for the current hyped hostility to Russia. Two extra points:
1. Trump publicly "aligned" himself with a more "open" policy towards Russia. When the leaks
occurred it made sense to the DNC to link & tar BOTH Trump & Russia with every evil under the
sun (two for price of one). And naturally the anti-trump forces continue with the farce.(Imagine
charging a president-elect with treason as some in the msm have done : mind-boggling !)
2. Hyping up the Russia-hate is handy for any future false flags, provocations etc to justify
retaliation.
There are many plausible reasons for the anti-Russian dialogue specifically the alleged vote
hack scenario but one cannot discount a very obvious one and that is the destroyed credibility
of the MSM in the mob's eyes.
How else to explain that they all walked in lockstep and some major ones were predicting a
Gorgon landslide and equally the statistical impossibility of a Trump win right up to election
night only to have major ostrich egg on their collective faces the next morning. "Hell hath no
fury like fake news outlets scorned" as Francis Bacon might say.
So now the implication would be that they were right (as always) but some evil elf in the Kremlin
changed the tally. Lame for sure but we are dealing with lamestream media. The top honchos know
that their days of influence are numbered. Only a collective ignorance can delay their demise.
A small point I wish to make taken from the body of the article is that whenever someone states
that a controversial document ( perhaps The Protocols) are a forgery, it is incumbent for someone
disagreeing to state "a forgery of what?" A forgery is not the same as a fake document created
out of whole cloth.
Who comprise about half of those who voted on Nov. 8.
I have found it hard to reserve even shallow attention for the hacking/interference allegations,
never mind apply deep reasoning to it. So I appreciate pieces like this.
I have assumed from the get-go that these narratives' sole purpose was for the Dems–or more
specifically their funders/puppetmasters–to stay in the headlines by any means necessary. "Stay
in the headlines" means "work the system to maintain the position to keep telling stories." As
any PR or advertising or marketing specialist can tell you, the most important part of a PR or
ad or marketing campaign is to stay on message. The message doesn't have to make sense or be true,
because its mere repetition is the point, not its content.
These stories serve to keep that voter base paying attention and emotionally mobilized. The
stories don't have to make sense or be true. This isn't reason playing out, it's secular-religious
hysteria.
The Dems appeal to a chunk of the electorate that operates from emotionalism, messianic zeal
that flips over to destructive rage, virtue signaling, and a desire to feel like heroes for rebelling
against whatever whatever.
I have read with interest the various explanations about why the United States's foreign policy
seems so pointlessly anti-Russian. There are a lot of reasons, ably articulated by the commenters.
It seems to me that, to put it bluntly, the United States, or at least a good portion of its
leadership, is in the midst of a national nervous breakdown, brought on by Donald Trump's unexpected
election. I would counsel Russia and its leadership to be very careful in dealing with the
U.S.--you simply can't tell what an irrational person/nation might do.
Good point though I'm guessing that the Russians got a whiff of your closing point sometime
in 2008.
He will have to frame any action within loud support for protecting America's security, but
it seems to me he must have ways of responding. It will be interesting to see if he uses them.
I am not all that familiar with the ins and outs of the top levels of the US security bureaucracy,
but here's the view of someone who is:
Surely this will have to be the first item on Trump's action list once in office? I mean, the
dangers to him of leaving these people in place are obvious.
Can SESes appeal adverse personnel actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board? I also think
that SESes can be hired outside the normal civil service process -- one of the original purposes
of the program was to draw on outside talent.
GS-15s might not be all that useful -- they're more likely to be thinking of their careers
in four years if Trump isn't re-elected (in the toilet). It's bureaucratic "inside baseball"
things like this that Trump needs to be made aware of so that he can clean house in the intelligence
establishment.
* anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)
In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way to
whip up some popular liberal support for it.
In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way
to whip up some popular liberal support for it.
Cato's approach of looking for a range of reasons is clearly the right one, since there is
no one authority driving policy, but rather a range of groups whose interests converge in one
policy direction on a particular issue. This is true for any substantial state and for any sufficiently
significant policy area, and especially so for US foreign policy. Looking for one single reason
why any major policy direction is pursued is futile.
As such, the homosexual lobby is clearly one of the forces driving anti-Russian policy in US
sphere countries, if not necessarily the most powerful. I think it should not be too blithely
underestimated, though, as a part of the general globalist/antinationalist/social radical ideological
alliance that dominates the US sphere media and political high ground.
That said, you are clearly also correct that US regime frustration with Russian involvement
in defeating their regime change project in Syria is also clearly very significant, although anti-Russian
sentiment in the US regime long predates that particular issue.
Brilliant analysis revealing the sad state of affairs currently existing in America. The ongoing
propaganda is having its intended effect influencing a good portion of the citizens (e.g.: over
50% of Americans during George Bush's second campaign still believed Iraq and Saddam were involved
in 911!) What is one to do?
You are correct they are watching the CIA mockingbird media and do not read books or know how
to research anything for the most part. So do please share this with them SIMPLE.
September 07, 2016 - September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up
of the Century "What Really Happened"?
WTC Building exploding into fine dust (it is not burning down) by pre-planted explosives
in an obvious controlled demolition.
If those who were elected at the state level are real this would be my strategy.
Dec 30, 2015 Nullification in One Lesson
"When the federal government violates our rights, we're not just supposed to sit idly by
and wait for the federal government to stop itself."
https://youtu.be/k3L0U9EcP0Y
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors
must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." James Madison
But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility
in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in
Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps
an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries
in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and
perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.
The foaming-at-the-mouth Russophobia and the Victoria Nuland & CIA-orchestrated coup in the
Ukraine occurred after Russia intervened in Syria re: the red line issue (and chemical attack
staged by Turks and CIA).
No patriot wants any foreign power influencing a US election. Therefore, I'd like to see the
actions of China, Israel, Mexico and the EU investigated with vigor equal to that brought to bear
on Russia.
As I said, I've only a vague and general idea of how the US security bureaucracy works at the
top levels. I don't know how the various SIS arrangements relate to the wider SES, or what
the protections etc are, so I'm totally dependent on those who do know more for clues as to
how things might play out when Trump takes office.
Common sense alone, though, surely suggests some sort of thorough purge, doubtless dressed
up as reform and improving fitness for purpose, must happen now, no? Presumably that might
mean something of a turf war between the Executive and the Legislative branches, since the
old establishment is still strong in the latter.
Perhaps a few Executive Orders might be needed.
GS-15s might not be all that useful–they're more likely to be thinking of their careers
in four years if Trump isn't re-elected (in the toilet).
That's a sensible point, but iirc there are limits on bringing in outsiders, at least as far
as SES is concerned.
It's bureaucratic "inside baseball" things like this that Trump needs to be made aware of
so that he can clean house in the intelligence establishment. It is obviously hostile to
him.
Indeed. I'm sure there are plenty of people advising him in detail on all this. For the rest
of us, it's a spectator sport, from a distance.
Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story
It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they
used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad
that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video
game! Nice Try Clinton News Network!
But that's just one of the useless "filler photos" (aka "artist's impression"), it's not
like someone claims having stood behind a Russian Hacker and photographed his screen.
Brilliant analysis revealing the sad state of affairs currently existing in America. The ongoing
propaganda is having its intended effect influencing a good portion of the citizens (e.g.: over
50% of Americans during George Bush's second campaign still believed Iraq and Saddam were involved
in 911!) What is one to do?
You are correct they are watching the CIA mockingbird media and do not read books or know how
to research anything for the most part. So do please share this with them SIMPLE.
September 07, 2016 – September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of
the Century "What Really Happened"?
WTC Building exploding into fine dust (it is not burning down) by pre-planted explosives in
an obvious controlled demolition.
This whole business is so infantile and it is demeaning to the dignity of the United States.
Of course, as we have clearly seen over the years, the intelligence agencies of all states
attempt to covertly gather sensitive information about each other – indeed, even when they are
not antagonists. Consider the US hacking of Angela Merkel's phone or Israel's spies Jonathan Pollard
and Lawrence Franklin.
Those in possession of state secrets have an obligation to secure them and, if they are penetrated,
the blame is to them alone. The DNC and Podesta emails were not even state secret material either!
Obama's petty and stupid response to the current unproven allegations against Russia will
haunt his legacy and Hillary's bizarre contention that Putin personally "had it in for her" is
yet another sign of her mental instability.
I saw yesterday that the fact of the Russians celebrating Trump's victory was taken as further
proof of their complicity in Hillary's downfall – how could they possibly be expected to behave
otherwise? Give me a break!
the Russian interference narrative did not serve to prevent Trump from becoming president
but it does seem that it will cause serious problems for his presidency and for American foreign
relations
Not necessarily. He may be able to discredit their narrative, and to replace it with his own narrative.
After all, he's done plenty of that during the campaign... And this time he'll have the 'bully
pulpit', so it should be easier....
Yes. The chutzpah patrol only knows how to double down / pick up nickels in front of a steamroller.
That strategy looks fine right up until it blows up completely. It could easily happen that they
beat Trump. It could also easily happen that they blow themselves up.
Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton was urged by "a group of prominent computer scientists and
election lawyers" to demand a recount in three states-Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-in
which Clinton seemed to be slightly ahead in pre-election polls but which were won by Trump
by narrow margins.
That is not quite true, Hillary pretended to be above it all, and used 'Green Party' candidate
Jill Stein as a proxy.
Which raises its own questions.
who covered the estimated $3.5 million cost of the endeavor.
Again, not true, she 'crowd-sourced' the money, perhaps a small portion of the cash was
left over from Stein's own campaign.
Raising so much so quickly indicates a plutocratic contribution.
the Soviet-spread rumor that the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus.
It was not a rumour, and has never been convincingly refuted. There was much scientific
analysis behind the claim, connected to related viruses.
The Americans came up with the 'African Green monkey' bullshit, claimed to have found earlier
cases in Africa, there are many auto-immune-system collapse disorders, there has never been
any convincing evidence for the claimed (and very few) earlier cases of auto-immune deficiency
found in old colonial health records, and claimed to be evidence of an Africa origin of AIDs,
having been related to HIV.
The fact is, patient zero and all of the early cases were in San Francisco, Los Angeles,
and the Fire Island scene in Noo Yawk. Wikipedia even misidentifies the real patient zero,
with some spreader of the disease that they say was patient O.
I am never part of those scenes, often bullied as straight, as often treated nicely as accepting,
although I have had good friends who were same-sex lovers, but the phenomenom of interpretation
of HIV-AIDS, as opposed to other auto-immune syndromes, it has really become wild propaganda.
Patient zero was certainly a homosexual Nord-Amerique man.
Propaganda to divert people's attention from this is very strong, another example of the
disconnection between pre-mass-'net paper info and now.
I do not want to write at length on this, now, but am making a very good case.
Your article is alright, but not very good, my comments before the AIDs-related ones may
assist you to write a little better.
the spreading of false information by intelligence services "is a technique that goes
back to Tsarist times."
No shit Sherlock? I goes way farther back than that, I read the rest of the article, wow,
a dim bulb struggling to be bright. You may get there, writing is not all bad.
> the Soviet-spread rumor that the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus.
It was not a rumour, and has never been convincingly refuted. There was much scientific
analysis behind the claim, connected to related viruses.
That made no sense in the 80s and makes no sense today.
The only "development" of a virus that had happened at that time was the development
of the spanish flu in the trenches of WWI (and we still don't know how that worked, really).
Hell, most of the stuff related to retroviruses still had to be written. Gallo was checking
out Leukemia-causing retrovirus. Remember the grainy, bad photos that the Institut Pasteur
published of "LAV"? Yeah. Grainy. That was the kind of tech back then.
At some point wrong structure diagrams appeared in Scientific American and Nature. PCR
was in its infancy. Computers were basically useless for deep data crunching. "Developing
a virus" was just not possible. Germans coming up with fully functional ICBMs in 1914 sounds
more likely.
" but going back to Russia's negotiation to thwart an attack on Syria in response to
the chemical attack which was being blamed on the Syrian government. That seems to be
when things really started heating up."
EXACTLY. That began with the frenzy over "Will gay Olympians be safe in Sochi?" nonsense
in US Big Media. Also when Code Pink and progressive media (aka Big Media's little brother)
got all hot and bothered about Pussy Riot. (Did Vice News even understand the reference
to chickens at the end of this video?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFrZfluKDrc Pussy Riot Gets Whipped in Sochi
Plus the obligatory slandering of Sochi facilities construction. All spite and sour grapes
over Syria.
As for "...the bitter Jewish pogrom-survivor angle" that would be Fucktoria Nuland, et
al. Plenty of them find it useful to nurse their Russia hatred.
As a footnote–and I wish could remember his name– but earlier this week O'Reilly had some guy
on his show who was a retired USMC "intelligence expert" who said in one breath that the CIA had
"proof" that the Rooshians hacked the emails then in the next breath said that the CIA can't release
the information as it would compromise their operatives. Yeah, right!
"Nonetheless, half of Clinton's voters still think Russia hacked the election day voting.[6]"
There are so many things that are wrong with the country . Some are transients some are less
important and some could be brushed aside as angry response from the loser but also a fundamental
shift could be seen in the dogged persuasion of the stupidities and visceral attachment to the
absurd despite the inconsistencies,contradictions,and presence of collectively motivated misrepresentation
,among both party's loyal supporters . These are loyal to party irrespective of the political
social economic faiths and known behaviors of the candidates . Because they have sunk their own
daily existential identities with that of a party, they find it difficult to move away from any
party position . It is a religion and the arguments and the information are fixed and formatted
to suit that unidirectional unyielding emotional intellectual existence . but it produces inertia
, extinguishes curiosity, stifles the resistance ,reinforces the stagnation , and eventually reduces
the power of the intellectual forces to guide the debate and the fate of the country. It does
so by bringing out and giving prominence to the most vocal sentimental ignorant intellectually
passive segment who dislike more intellectually inquisitive challenging neutral minded citizen
and supporters with openness to new possibilities and ideas .
Nuances don't matter . Blind belief becomes synonymous with resolve and steadfastness .
Bush Cheney destroyed the GOP Now Clinton is doing same with ample help from those whose interests
she would serve best .( It is doubtful if Bush or Cruz or Huckabee or Graham or Rubio were the
winner, we would be seeing this remonstration . So basically people are being schooled to follow
certain official positions and lines Those positions are also the positions of the elite irrespective
of the party affiliation .Party works for the elite that roam across the aisle . In this situation
, the presence of thinking and discerning minds pose a risk . The zeitgeist is best preserved
by the vocal assertive and effective presence of the sheeple dyed in different colors who would
fight for the preservation of the colors and for nothing else .
Does it portend a decline of average IQ over times? If it does then the western civilization
is digging its own grave . Even if it doesn't in this particular route , the route that is being
offered through stifling of any logical rational openness ,suppression of any kind of questioning
and insistence on one kind of idea,value, and analysis leads to the same fate .
Does it portend a decline of average IQ over times? If it does then the western civilization
is digging its own grave .
The new left vs right, or a new kind of opposition politics based less on ''issues'', and more
on what kind of Bull shit you are vulnerable to. The various Catapulted Propogandar.
Cartoon images, or more realistic stuff? Not that cartoons need to be less insightful than
movies.
But, what I am gett'n at: politics between the two sides of the Bell Curve, more and more.
Yellow cake story No.2 ? Probably he implies that the release of Stuxnet, Flame and similar worms was responsible.
What they can hide after Snowden revelations? The fact that they collect all inbound and outbound
traffic ?
One recurring lament throughout the theatrically dramatic campaign involving reports and emotional
appeals by US intelligence agencies such as the CIA (whose primary function is the creation of disinformation)
to ordinary Americans, that Russia had "hacked the US presidential election" is that for all the
bluster and "conviction", there has been zero evidence.
And, as it turns out, there won't be any, because according to the US State Department, US intelligence
agencies were right to not reveal evidence of their proof that Russia interfered in US elections,
and comparisons with intelligence reports that Iraq had WMDs were not relevant in the current year.
Asked by RT's Gayane Chichakyan if Friday's public intelligence report should have contained any
proof of Russian intervention, State Department spokesman John Kirby said that
no one should be surprised
that US intelligence agencies were keeping evidence secret in order to protect sources and methods.
"Most American people understand that they have the responsibility to protect their sources and
methods," Kirby said, adding it would be "irresponsible" to do otherwise. Actually, with the Iraq
WMD fiasco strill fresh in "American people's" minds, it is irresponsible to think most Americans
are still naive idiots who will believe whatever the "intelligence agencies" will tell them.
... ... ...
When Chichakyan brought up the 2003 intelligence assessment on the
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – invoked by the Bush administration to justify the US invasion
and occupation of that country – Kirby said the comparison was irrelevant, since that was a long
time ago.
"We have moved on. We have learned a lot from those mistakes," he said.
Ironically, somehow much of America ended up with the opposite conclusion.
Bunghole
-> 07564111
•Jan 9, 2017 9:59 PM
Didn't State claim Ambassador Stevens was killed over a youtube video?
... ... ...
I agree with Kirby unreservedly when he stated: 'I think, er... well, I don't think...'
These blind fools cannot fathom that an increasing number of others don't simply regurgitate
the narrative thoughtlessly. We apply rational thought, particularly in considering what the
implications are to the innocents e.g. 500,000 dead civilians in Iraq.
It's good in a way as it simply brings society closer to the demise of this evil sooner.
Unfortunately this may require us passing through a period of intense turmoil, upheaval, pain
and suffering.
As Jim Morrison said:
'they've got the guns, but we got the numbers... TAKING OVER... C'MON'
philipat -> BullyBearish
•Jan 9, 2017 9:59 PM
So let me see if I get this straight. Either, there IS no evidence, OR the US is doing
precisely the same things that the Russians are accused of? Neither is an attractive admission
by .gov if the propaganda is to be effective. Repeat after me, it was the Russians......
07564111 -> philipat
•Jan 9, 2017 10:12 PM
OR the US is doing precisely the same things that the Russians are accused of?
"Trust us, we know best."
- Anonymous Intelligence Official (speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not
authorized to make statements).
Reaper
•Jan 9, 2017 9:53 PM
We ought thank Putin for revealing the corruption of Clinton, if he truly did it. Intel
presents an argument for fools. If Putin likes chocolate, should we hate it? The logical
fallacy: guilt by association.
Franz Klintsevich, the first deputy chairman of the Defense and Security Committee of
the Russian parliament's upper house, added fuel to the fire, saying the U.S.
intelligence community made unfounded allegations of Russia-sponsored hacker attacks, in
favor of the outgoing US presidential administration and made a fool of itself.
Speaking to
RIA Novosti
,
the senator said that the allegations "simply make no sense. The main reason is that no
one can interfere with the electoral process in such country as the United States," he
pointed out. "Acting in favor of the outgoing presidential administration, the US
intelligence community laid itself open to ridicule."
Other Russians agreed such as Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a
state-funded television network that broadcasts in English, who is cited repeatedly in
the report, posted her own message on Twitter scoffing at the American intelligence
community's accusations. "Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro to my
show from 6 years ago is the main evidence of Russia's influence at US elections. This
is not a joke!" she wrote.
Even Russians who have been critical of their government voiced dismay at the United
States intelligence agencies' account of an elaborate Russian conspiracy unsupported by
solid evidence. Alexey Kovalyov, a Russian journalist who has followed and frequently
criticized RT, said he was aghast that the report had given so much attention to the
television station. "I do have a beef with RT and their chief," Mr. Kovalyov wrote in a
social media post, "But they are not your nemesis, America. Please chill."
The Kremlin, which has in the past repeatedly denied any role in the hacking of the
Democratic National Committee computer system, had no immediate response to the
declassified report. Putin instead made a show of business as usual, attending a church
service to mark the start of Orthodox Christmas.
His composure was understandable because as the NYT again remarkably notes, "
The
report provides no new evidence to support assertions that Moscow meddled covertly
through hacking and other actions to boost the electoral chances of Donald J. Trump and
undermine his rival, Hillary Clinton, but rests instead on what it describes as Moscow's
long record of trying to influence America's political system
."
In other words, speculation and innuendo. Curiously, the NYT's bashing of the report
continued:
The public report did not include evidence on the sources and methods used to
collect the information about Mr. Putin and his associates that intelligence
officials said was in a classified version.
The NYT also cited Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russian intelligence agencies at the
Institute of International Relations in Prague, who said he was skeptical of the
accusation that Putin had ordered the hacking. All the same, he added, Russian spies,
like their Soviet predecessors, "don't just collect information but try to assert
influence." United States intelligence operatives, he said, have often done the same
thing but the Russians, convinced that the United States orchestrated protests in
Ukraine in 2014 that toppled the pro-Moscow president, Viktor F. Yanukovych, and other
popular uprisings in former Soviet lands, "have a more aggressive approach to meddling
in other people's politics."
The NYT continued: "Galeotti, the intelligence expert in Prague, cautioned that this
mission to influence foreign politics was not a uniquely Russian
phenomenon but
had also been embraced in the past by the CIA, which, in the 1950s, sought to shape
and subvert politics in countries like Iran and Guatemala
."
Actually, and this is the real punchline, there is an
entire Wikipedia page dedicated
to US involvement in overthrowing foreign regimes.
Here are
just the examples
since World War II (* indicates successful ouster of a
government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
Perhaps the reasons behind the rushed, and frankly humiliating, report is that US
intelligence was scrambling to respond to the first ever case of someone
doing to it
what the US had done to the rest of the world for decades
without any fear of retaliation.
As for Galeotti, he said the United States intelligence report on Russian meddling in
the November election had gone too far in projecting Cold War attitudes onto today's
reality.
He said it was a mistake to suppose that Mr. Putin had from the start
conducted "a Machiavellian conspiracy" aimed at bringing Mr. Trump to power.
More likely, he added, was that Mr. Putin was not involved or even informed about
initial efforts to hack into the D.N.C. computer system but, informed after the fact
about what had been done, "decided to act opportunistically" and make use of the
hacker's harvest of emails to try to tilt the election.
His conclusion:
"I don't think the Russians believed for a minute that Trump
could really be elected,"
Galeotti said.
"They were convinced that U.S.
elites would ensure that one of their own would win. They thought they had a chance to
do a bit of mischief but I think they were amazed, even aghast, at what happened.
"
Why? Here is perhaps the biggest reason, also known as the
real fake news
courtesy of
Reuters
...
Geez, I was 13 and also saw it with my parents at "the movies".
You old fart. :-)
BTW, if your handle has anything to do with
the book, I've read
Confederacy of Dunces
3 times. You
seem like the kind of person who would like that book, if you
don't mind me saying,er...just sayin' or whatever they fucking
say these days.
The problem in the 2016 election was that the
establishment had gotten so arrogant that it didn't even
bother to hide the glaring across-the-board favouritism
lavished on Hillary Clinton...
The American people are the one who saw an opportunity
to be mischievous and boy did they reach for it.
The problem with our "intelligence" ( really ??)
agencies is the fact that their collective IQ has been
reduced to match Obozo's IQ (which ain't too high...);
hence, the recently witnessed Jerry Springer kind of
shit show...
I actually experienced the opposite, as my very first college class
featured a history professor who told us the real meat behind the writing
of the Constitution (language written to protect white male land owners,
etc.). From then on I have had my eyes open...but of course, that was
1981. Another world entirely.
but they used to tell us Americans are
stupid, socially disconnected, they don't care about their parents and are
obsessed with money. Also that American education sucks
There's nothing "progressive" about Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama,
just as there was nothing "conservative" about George W Bush or Mitt
Romney. Millions of "leftists" stayed home on Nov. 8, which is why
Hillary lost. Why are you trying to divide the American people?
It's been 70 years coming. The CIA was created in the Truman
Administration, though it was Eisenhower who let it get truly out of control
under Allen Dulles.
1. So, when will Hillary and Debbie Wassername-Schultz be charged with
interfering in "our democracy"? The emails were not forged, they were
authentic.
2. Scott Foval & Robert Creamer hiring mentally deficient homeless
people to incite riots...any charges forthcoming...LowRenta? ;-)
At a time when "federal law enforcement" (such as it is...lol) is
investigating the Clinton Foundation for what can only be called
BRIBERY & CORRUPTION
...the MSM Fake News agencies are oddly
silent on the fate of Eric Braverman aren't they?
No op-eds. No
"journalistic curiosity" standing behind their shredded shield of
"freedom of the press". Saying. Nothing. Seeing. Nothing. Leading to moar
lack of their journalistic integrity which they bemoaningly write
about...endlessly...in op-eds. No Bernsteins & Woodwards in sight. Not
even one.
I started paying attention to TV news in the early 60s and remember
Walter Cronkite going on about the Viet Nam War and the family was all
ears because my brother got drafted and I would be up in a few years.
What Cronkite said we agreed with because we literally had skin in the
game and we were still hurting from losses from the Korean War. Now
they are saying the newscasters back then were full of shit and were
shaping people's opinions. You never heard about any victories, just a
lot of negativity and hopelessness accompanied by grisly but expertly
edited war footage. No wonder people took drugs.
Having said that,
what we got now is a hundred times worse and your opinion of today's
press and media is pretty much what I think too. Well said.
Exactly. This Clownshow of Obama and the CIA is making me sick. Illustrates
why our country is in such bad shape. Morons and an affirmative action
Whitehouse and every other shit ass who rode the shortbus are running the
country.
Prosecute the real interferers and then let the War Crimes trials
begin !!!
"... I have some friends who seem to hold out the fantasy that these corporations will forbear from "normalizing" Trump, presumably by turning their news broadcasts into some version of America Held Hostage for the duration of the Trump presidency. But this is fairly ridiculous. The audience for that kind of treatment of the administration is relatively small, and so that's not the treatment major new organizations are likely to produce. ..."
"... talking to the progressive neoliberals here is a waste of time. Their heads are fully up their behinds. ..."
"... Their competent, knowledgeable establishment candidate lost to a laughable reality TV star clown. They're still in shock. Waste of time. ..."
"... Other tilts include the ad hominem, the red herring, false equivalent, the halo, and so forth. ..."
"... Does exhibiting several of the top ten logic fallacies qualify for HFUTB? ..."
Well, that's capitalism. NBC News is a a division of Comcast, a large capitalist firm. They are
in the business of making money by attracting consumer/viewer eyeballs to their output and out-competing
their competitors for market share. Therefore they can always be expected to continually modify
and redesign that output in the direction of perceived changes in audience tastes.
I have some friends who seem to hold out the fantasy that these corporations will forbear from
"normalizing" Trump, presumably by turning their news broadcasts into some version of America
Held Hostage for the duration of the Trump presidency. But this is fairly ridiculous. The audience
for that kind of treatment of the administration is relatively small, and so that's not the treatment
major new organizations are likely to produce.
Russians Ridicule US Charge That Kremlin
Meddled to Help Trump http://nyti.ms/2i4mL60
NYT - ANDREW HIGGINS - January 7, 2017
... Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a state-funded television network that broadcasts
in English, who is cited repeatedly in the report, posted her own message on Twitter scoffing
at the American intelligence community's accusations.
"Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro to my show from 6 years ago is the
main evidence of Russia's influence at US elections. This is not a joke!" she wrote.
Even Russians who have been critical of their government voiced dismay at the United States
intelligence agencies' account of an elaborate Russian conspiracy unsupported by solid evidence.
...
Yeah, I'll believe anything that appears in the Russian press.
"Sitting next to Putin was RT's 36-year-old editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, a raven-haired
former state television reporter who took over RT when she was 25. She is a feisty defender of
her network, often lashing out against critics-and there are many-who say RT is little more than
a weapon in a Russian information war against the West. Secretary of State John Kerry calls the
network a "propaganda bullhorn" for Putin; it has been a subject at House and Senate foreign affairs
hearings; and, in mid-March, two U.S. senators introduced the Countering Information Warfare Act,
which is aimed in part at the network. Simonyan almost seems to enjoy battling RT's legions of
critics. When a BuzzFeed reporter asked her in 2014 about alleged Kremlin influence, Simonyan
unleashed a mocking reply. "[W]e just read the latest Kremlin press releases on camera. It is
much more efficient that way," she wrote on RT's website, adding sardonically that the network
"unleash[es] the KGB on anyone who dares to leave." And yet, Simonyan does in fact keep a yellow
telephone with no dial pad on her desk, which Simonyan conceded to a Time reporter last year is
a secure line to the Kremlin.
In his remarks at the dinner, Putin showed obvious pride in the network, saying its efforts
reminded him of the way hardworking Russian sailors tear the shirts off their backs. He most decidedly
wasn't mentioning that hotline to the Kremlin on Simonyan's desk or Kerry's scathing dismissal
of his "bullhorn." Far from it. "Your greatest strength is presenting information freely and independently,"
Putin told the crowd, who sipped wine in translucent chairs around white-clothed tables. "We do
not control you. and we do not meddle," Putin said. He also boasted that RT has a reach of 700
million viewers, though he conceded they had no idea how many people actually watch; U.S. officials
say the American viewership is much lower than RT's estimate of 8 million per week on cable systems
like Comcast, Time Warner and Dish Network. (They are also skeptical of RT's claim to have a budget
of only $250 million worldwide. In March, Republican Senator Rob Portman cited reports saying
the cost of the network's Washington bureau alone could be $400 million, though RT adamantly denies
that, and the original source of the report is unclear.)
Putin did hint at RT's role in the political war Russia finds itself waging with the West,
referring to the "complicated" state of global politics and "distortions of events," including
in Ukraine and Syria, and saying that RT can describe "the true events" to a growing global audience
yearning for unbiased facts.
But Putin's comments are at odds with how the network operates in practice, according to interviews
with people who closely watch or have worked at RT, and my own hours of monitoring the network
and its website. One former RT staffer in Washington told me that she left her job, along with
others who have also spoken to the media, after seeing the network's Moscow-based editors instruct
journalists to make their coverage hew to the Moscow-approved political line. Such concerns erupted
into full view a couple years ago when Russia marched into neighboring Ukraine to annex the Crimean
Peninsula, leading a 28-year-old RT presenter named Liz Wahl to quit on-air, declaring, "I cannot
be a part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin."
Just under the surface is a bought-and-paid-for propaganda vehicle trying to nudge viewers
toward Russia's side of the story at a time when Moscow has increasingly become an international
pariah.
Today, it's clear RT operates less as the free and independent news source Putin touted, and
more as a vehicle that increasingly uses the available tools of the digital revolution-from viral
videos ("Animated Genitals," "Lawnmower Explodes") to entertainingly snarky tweets-to promote
Russia's message. It's positioning itself as a scrappy dissenter to the old Western media's monopoly
on information, a theme Simonyan emphasized to me in a statement for this story. Americans, she
said, watch RT for "stories, views and analysis they won't find in the mainstream media." As for
criticism of RT's coverage of the United States and the 2016 campaign, she sounded a positively
Trumpian theme, saying RT's critics are "mostly members of the U.S. political establishment, who
are uncomfortable with losing the longtime monopoly on information."
RT has value in present circumstance similar (but less) to what BBC and Voice of America has
for Soviet people before that.
The fact that it is propaganda outlet of Russian government does not change this simple fact.
Soviet people also understood very well that the BBC and Voice of America are far from impartial
and propagate the point of view of corresponding governments. That understood all to well that
some information will be lies and disinformation and it provided by people who escape and hold
grudges against the USSR. Still they wanted "the second opinion" so badly that this
consideration overweighs all others. Even if in some cases they will be taken for a ride.
I think a very similar situation exists now in the USA. Neoliberal MSM were disgusting during
Presidential complain. As Trump supporter I simply could not read them.
And it is not surprising for them that now the US MSM are not trusted and people want a second
opinion on the MSM coverage of foreign and (increasingly) domestic events.
RT fills this niche and that's probably partially explains its popularity.
I personally seldom use it (and find some of its shows are quite annoying) as blogs and alternative
media such as therealnews.com unz.com, antiwar.com, counterpunch.org, etc can fill the same role.
I would like them to give Snowden a role of an independent security commentator. He probably understands
the current McCarthyism witch hunt better then others. And he has real technical knowledge
necessary for covering those events.
But some articles it published are good or even excellent and provide a decent insight into
the events in question.
Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to
Aid Trump, Report Finds
http://nyti.ms/2jbXCV1
NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR and DAVID E. SANGER - Jan 6
WASHINGTON - President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia
directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton
the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval
Office, the nation's top intelligence agencies said in an
extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.
The officials presented their unanimous conclusions to Mr.
Trump in a two-hour briefing at Trump Tower in New York that
brought the leaders of America's intelligence agencies face
to face with their most vocal skeptic, the president-elect,
who has repeatedly cast doubt on Russia's role. The meeting
came just two weeks before Mr. Trump's inauguration and was
underway even as the electoral votes from his victory were
being formally counted in a joint session of Congress.
Soon after leaving the meeting, intelligence officials
released the declassified, damning report that described the
sophisticated cybercampaign as part of a continuing Russian
effort to weaken the United States government and its
democratic institutions. The report - a virtually unheard-of,
real-time revelation by the American intelligence agencies
that undermined the legitimacy of the president who is about
to direct them - made the case that Mr. Trump was the favored
candidate of Mr. Putin.
The Russian leader, the report said, sought to denigrate
Mrs. Clinton, and the report detailed what the officials had
revealed to President Obama a day earlier: Mr. Trump's
victory followed a complicated, multipart cyberinformation
attack whose goal had evolved to help the Republican win.
The 25-page report did not conclude that Russian
involvement tipped the election to Mr. Trump.
The public report lacked the evidence that intelligence
officials said was included in a classified version, which
they described as information on the sources and methods used
to collect the information about Mr. Putin and his
associates. Those would include intercepts of conversations
and the harvesting of computer data from "implants" that the
United States and its allies have put in Russian computer
networks. ...
If elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin's man in
the White House? This should be a ludicrous, outrageous
question. After all, he must be a patriot - he even wears
hats promising to make America great again.
But we're talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate.
And the Trump campaign's recent behavior has quite a few
foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr.
Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that
influence will continue if he wins.
I'm not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin's
performance - being impressed by the de facto dictator's
"strength," and wanting to emulate his actions. I am,
instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in
office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the
expense of America's allies and her own self-interest.
That's not to deny that Mr. Trump does, indeed, admire Mr.
Putin. On the contrary, he has repeatedly praised the Russian
strongman, often in extravagant terms. For example, when Mr.
Putin published an article attacking American exceptionalism,
Mr. Trump called it a "masterpiece."
But admiration for Putinism isn't unusual in Mr. Trump's
party. Well before the Trump candidacy, Putin envy on the
right was already widespread.
For one thing, Mr. Putin is someone who doesn't worry
about little things like international law when he decides to
invade a country. He's "what you call a leader," declared
Rudy Giuliani after Russia invaded Ukraine. ...
Slate: Trump's devotion to the Russian president has been
portrayed as buffoonish enthusiasm for a fellow macho
strongman. But Trump's statements of praise amount to
something closer to slavish devotion. In 2007, he praised
Putin for "rebuilding Russia." A year later he added, "He
does his work well. Much better than our Bush." When Putin
ripped American exceptionalism in a New York Times op-ed in
2013, Trump called it "a masterpiece."
What Putin Has to Say to Americans
About Syria
http://nyti.ms/1eFFMCQ
NYT - VLADIMIR V. PUTIN - SEPT. 11, 2013
Donald J. Trump✔ @realDonaldTrump
Putin's letter is a masterpiece for Russia and a disaster for
the U.S. He is lecturing to our President.Never has our
Country looked to weak
You may have been right in thinking that
the need to seem hawkish when chasing the
presidency is no longer essential, at least
with regard to Russia.
Now I have secretly believed all
along that
US and them have been 2 sides of the same coin,
brash, arrogant, yada yada. Perhaps we can do
some bizness together, yes?
Maybe they could use a half-decent missile
defense system, priced to sell.
I don't think that you will ever find that a broad consensus
emerge that an elected candidate is legitimate.
Bill Clinton was attacked from day one and considered
illegitimate by the right because their (two) candidates had
gotten more votes.
Bush II was considered illegitimate by the left because he
was appointed by a right wing supreme court that refused to
wait and actually count the votes in Florida.
Obama was considered illegitimate by the right because of
birth certificates (yes sometimes they just make up shtuff to
allow themselves to believe) - and later because he used and
expanded the executive powers Bush had pushed at the end.
Ultimately a substantial number of people from the
opposite side of the political spectrum will question the
legitimacy of the elected president, whether there are
legitimate questions or not. The consequences for America is
what we have lived with since 1992; a super-charged
partisanship that is getting worse not better.
Obama - 2008:
52.9% of the popular vote, 365 electoral votes
whereas McCain got 45.7% & 173 ev; 58.2% turnout
Bush Sr - 1988:
53.4% & 426 ev vs. Dukakis with 45.6% & 111 ev;
50.2% turnout
Reagan, 2nd term - 1984:
58.8% & 525 ev vs 40.6% & 13 ev for Mondale; 53.3% turnout
Trump - 2016:
46% of the popular vote, 304 electoral votes
vs 48% & 227 ev for Clinton; 55.3% turnout.
All were 'legitimate' - putative Russian influence
aside, arguably. 'Mandates' can be asserted
only for the first three, IMO. Possibly excepting
Bush, due to low turnout.
Winning the electoral vote while losing the
popular vote makes this one a 'squeaker'.
Russians
Ridicule US Charge That Kremlin
Meddled to Help Trump
http://nyti.ms/2i4mL60
NYT - ANDREW HIGGINS - January 7, 2017
... Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a
state-funded television network that broadcasts in English,
who is cited repeatedly in the report, posted her own message
on Twitter scoffing at the American intelligence community's
accusations.
"Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro
to my show from 6 years ago is the main evidence of Russia's
influence at US elections. This is not a joke!" she wrote.
Even Russians who have been critical of their government
voiced dismay at the United States intelligence agencies'
account of an elaborate Russian conspiracy unsupported by
solid evidence. ...
EMichael -> Fred C. Dobbs...
, -1
Yeah, I'll believe anything that appears in the Russian
press.
"Sitting next to Putin was RT's 36-year-old
editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, a raven-haired former
state television reporter who took over RT when she was 25.
She is a feisty defender of her network, often lashing out
against critics-and there are many-who say RT is little more
than a weapon in a Russian information war against the West.
Secretary of State John Kerry calls the network a "propaganda
bullhorn" for Putin; it has been a subject at House and
Senate foreign affairs hearings; and, in mid-March, two U.S.
senators introduced the Countering Information Warfare Act,
which is aimed in part at the network. Simonyan almost seems
to enjoy battling RT's legions of critics. When a BuzzFeed
reporter asked her in 2014 about alleged Kremlin influence,
Simonyan unleashed a mocking reply. "[W]e just read the
latest Kremlin press releases on camera. It is much more
efficient that way," she wrote on RT's website, adding
sardonically that the network "unleash[es] the KGB on anyone
who dares to leave." And yet, Simonyan does in fact keep a
yellow telephone with no dial pad on her desk, which Simonyan
conceded to a Time reporter last year is a secure line to the
Kremlin.
In his remarks at the dinner, Putin showed obvious pride
in the network, saying its efforts reminded him of the way
hardworking Russian sailors tear the shirts off their backs.
He most decidedly wasn't mentioning that hotline to the
Kremlin on Simonyan's desk or Kerry's scathing dismissal of
his "bullhorn." Far from it. "Your greatest strength is
presenting information freely and independently," Putin told
the crowd, who sipped wine in translucent chairs around
white-clothed tables. "We do not control you. and we do not
meddle," Putin said. He also boasted that RT has a reach of
700 million viewers, though he conceded they had no idea how
many people actually watch; U.S. officials say the American
viewership is much lower than RT's estimate of 8 million per
week on cable systems like Comcast, Time Warner and Dish
Network. (They are also skeptical of RT's claim to have a
budget of only $250 million worldwide. In March, Republican
Senator Rob Portman cited reports saying the cost of the
network's Washington bureau alone could be $400 million,
though RT adamantly denies that, and the original source of
the report is unclear.)
Putin did hint at RT's role in the political war Russia
finds itself waging with the West, referring to the
"complicated" state of global politics and "distortions of
events," including in Ukraine and Syria, and saying that RT
can describe "the true events" to a growing global audience
yearning for unbiased facts.
But Putin's comments are at odds with how the network
operates in practice, according to interviews with people who
closely watch or have worked at RT, and my own hours of
monitoring the network and its website. One former RT staffer
in Washington told me that she left her job, along with
others who have also spoken to the media, after seeing the
network's Moscow-based editors instruct journalists to make
their coverage hew to the Moscow-approved political line.
Such concerns erupted into full view a couple years ago when
Russia marched into neighboring Ukraine to annex the Crimean
Peninsula, leading a 28-year-old RT presenter named Liz Wahl
to quit on-air, declaring, "I cannot be a part of a network
funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions
of Putin."
Just under the surface is a bought-and-paid-for propaganda
vehicle trying to nudge viewers toward Russia's side of the
story at a time when Moscow has increasingly become an
international pariah.
Today, it's clear RT operates less as the free and
independent news source Putin touted, and more as a vehicle
that increasingly uses the available tools of the digital
revolution-from viral videos ("Animated Genitals," "Lawnmower
Explodes") to entertainingly snarky tweets-to promote
Russia's message. It's positioning itself as a scrappy
dissenter to the old Western media's monopoly on information,
a theme Simonyan emphasized to me in a statement for this
story. Americans, she said, watch RT for "stories, views and
analysis they won't find in the mainstream media." As for
criticism of RT's coverage of the United States and the 2016
campaign, she sounded a positively Trumpian theme, saying
RT's critics are "mostly members of the U.S. political
establishment, who are uncomfortable with losing the longtime
monopoly on information."
"... The Intercept has been very good on this whole Russian hacking issue. They are not denying the claims of the intelligence agencies (in fact, their opinion is that they are probably right). But they keep pointing out that the agencies' unclassified reports keep reaching the same conclusions but provide flimsy or no evidence. ..."
"... Their attack on the Post on the PropOrNot misinformation is similar. They argue that many papers and journalists echo someone's opinion without any corroborating facts. As they point out, this is particularly insidious when the perpetrator is a widely quoted source like the Post; soon, the misinformation becomes a "fact" that "everyone knows". Retractions are usually late, small, and cannot undo the damage. ..."
The Intercept has been very good on this whole Russian
hacking issue. They are not denying the claims of the
intelligence agencies (in fact, their opinion is that they
are probably right). But they keep pointing out that the
agencies' unclassified reports keep reaching the same
conclusions but provide flimsy or no evidence.
So, the
public is being asked to take the agencies on faith. The
Intercept says that given the agencies' record, journalists
should at least point this out, and not treat these
allegations as settled fact.
Their attack on the Post on the PropOrNot
misinformation is similar. They argue that many papers and
journalists echo someone's opinion without any corroborating
facts. As they point out, this is particularly insidious when
the perpetrator is a widely quoted source like the Post;
soon, the misinformation becomes a "fact" that "everyone
knows". Retractions are usually late, small, and cannot undo
the damage.
I do not disagree with this at all. We both realize there is
a limit to the info that can be released, but that should not
make us comfortable at this point.
I will point out two
things.
First, the FBI is on line with the consensus. Comey's
actions from this summer, when he went way off the
reservation to scold Clinton, to the clusterf!ck before the
election ( I believe that is a clear violation of the Hatch
Act) shows clearly that the FBI was no impartial.
Second, the "agencies' record" that is oft mentioned,
seems to place the blame on the Iraq war on those agencies.
As I remember (and I fought against people thinking bush's
actions were justified back then), there was no such
consensus among the intelligence community on the existence
of WMDs. Rather, there was strong doubts in some of the
groups.
None of that means this consensus is correct, but it does
seem to be totally agreed to by all of the community.
This attack on the Intel community itself, with absolutely
no contra info from outside the community (which certainly
existed regarding WMD info before Iraq) reminds me of people
laying blame on Clinton for invading Iraq. That was not her
call, but somehow she bears the blame with some people.
Most importantly, this is not about who the POTUS will be.
That is a fact. ANd I have seen no calls at all to cancel the
results of the election(nor should there be).
At the same time, this issue needs to be investigated
thoroughly, and if the allegations are true, Russia needs to
be punished for their actions.(oh, and I am not talking about
military actions).
If true, Putin should be sanctioned for another ten
years(or until he leaves) and we should take actions against
those who do not take actions against him. I mean, it is not
like there is not prior offenses by him in this area. He is a
threat to the stability of countries in eastern europe, the
middle east, europe, and now the US.
Shorter: lined up your fallacies to support what? Regime
change, war in Europe, nuclear holocaust....
longer:
Blood on Putin's hands! He is a pacifist compared to
Obama, even considering his military spends less than 7% what
the US wastes to kill people all over the world.
It is only in the past 8 years that the neocon, faux
democrat, neolibs have used NATO to threaten regime change on
Russia.
Poland and Hungary "joined" NATO when?*
All the blood on Obama's hands with the instigation of the
neocon Clinton's gang! Who is evil, certainly not the
exceptional Obama, the fascists in Ukraine nor the [neocons
of the] CIA trained jihadi proxies.
Putin rich, same as the Clintons rising from taking White
House flat wear in 2001. Besides CIA says Putin is a dot com
genius running hacks and all.......
*1997 Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, 1999 was the
Baltic states and several other "eastern" nations, the last
"enlargement" #6 Albania [got their county of Kosovo from
NATO in 1997] and Croatia was 2009.
We can see why the left wanted Clinton elected. A Clinton
presidency could lead to their desired war with Russia
(Putin). The left is inflamed that Trump won't act so quick
on such war-mongering, although there is other war-mongering
he will likely engage in (Middle East).
If we are going to
engage in regime change could we at least pick a dictator
that is economically starving their population (Maduro)?
Brainwashed part of commentariat here does not understand that the fact the USA escaped the
danger to be ruled by Clinton mafia is a blessing, not a curse. Trump does not matter in this
respect. The fact of escape matters a lot.
None of them would ever agree that the benefits to be ruled by a 69 years old health handicapped
(probably Parkinson stage II) neocon warmonger for the USA population might be highly questionable.
More so then for Trump, who also represents some dangers. That's for sure.
And there are quite a few such people here who uncritically repeat neoliberal propaganda: The
more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed ( if not plain vanilla evil ) they might
be in political issues. Probably a side effect of overspecialization.
Take for example a group of people here who claim that Putin is a kleptocrat. If so he obviously
should put his money in Western banks like any self-respecting kleptocrat ;-). But nobody has
found such a bank. And that includes a dozen of the USA intelligence agencies, which so easily
determined that government connected Russian hackers penetrated DNC stole emails and submitted
them to Wikileaks to influence the USA presidential election.
The fact that bank with his billions was never found, makes it more plausible that he is just
a moderate Russian nationalist (with some neoliberal tendencies -- he brought Russia into WTO)
and not a kleptocrat like neoliberal propaganda machine in the USA and GB proclaim.
But tell them that Hillary is a classic kleptocrat (and she clearly is taking bribes, sorry
donations and speaking fees, left and right) and they will do such a hissy fit that you will regret
that you touched this theme.
As for hacking hysteria tell them that it looks more and more plausible that some part of US
elite now is definitely interested in reviving "Red scare" to improve manageability and social
stability of neoliberal society, which with the election of Trump got into the second crisis after
2008, with the population no longer believing neoliberal myths and you will be declared Putin
stooge (Putin stooge for some commenters here is any person with whom they disagree; how convenient).
They are also very sensitive to political correctness rules. Just mention Building 7 and your
instantly become 9/11 truther. But, at the same time, most of them never watched 30 sec video
of building 7 collapse (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU ) and do not understand elementary physics.
Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to
Aid Trump, Report Finds
http://nyti.ms/2jbXCV1
NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR and DAVID E. SANGER - Jan 6
WASHINGTON - President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia
directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton
the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval
Office, the nation's top intelligence agencies said in an
extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.
The officials presented their unanimous conclusions to Mr.
Trump in a two-hour briefing at Trump Tower in New York that
brought the leaders of America's intelligence agencies face
to face with their most vocal skeptic, the president-elect,
who has repeatedly cast doubt on Russia's role. The meeting
came just two weeks before Mr. Trump's inauguration and was
underway even as the electoral votes from his victory were
being formally counted in a joint session of Congress.
Soon after leaving the meeting, intelligence officials
released the declassified, damning report that described the
sophisticated cybercampaign as part of a continuing Russian
effort to weaken the United States government and its
democratic institutions. The report - a virtually unheard-of,
real-time revelation by the American intelligence agencies
that undermined the legitimacy of the president who is about
to direct them - made the case that Mr. Trump was the favored
candidate of Mr. Putin.
The Russian leader, the report said, sought to denigrate
Mrs. Clinton, and the report detailed what the officials had
revealed to President Obama a day earlier: Mr. Trump's
victory followed a complicated, multipart cyberinformation
attack whose goal had evolved to help the Republican win.
The 25-page report did not conclude that Russian
involvement tipped the election to Mr. Trump.
The public report lacked the evidence that intelligence
officials said was included in a classified version, which
they described as information on the sources and methods used
to collect the information about Mr. Putin and his
associates. Those would include intercepts of conversations
and the harvesting of computer data from "implants" that the
United States and its allies have put in Russian computer
networks. ...
If elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin's man in
the White House? This should be a ludicrous, outrageous
question. After all, he must be a patriot - he even wears
hats promising to make America great again.
But we're talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate.
And the Trump campaign's recent behavior has quite a few
foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr.
Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that
influence will continue if he wins.
I'm not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin's
performance - being impressed by the de facto dictator's
"strength," and wanting to emulate his actions. I am,
instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in
office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the
expense of America's allies and her own self-interest.
That's not to deny that Mr. Trump does, indeed, admire Mr.
Putin. On the contrary, he has repeatedly praised the Russian
strongman, often in extravagant terms. For example, when Mr.
Putin published an article attacking American exceptionalism,
Mr. Trump called it a "masterpiece."
But admiration for Putinism isn't unusual in Mr. Trump's
party. Well before the Trump candidacy, Putin envy on the
right was already widespread.
For one thing, Mr. Putin is someone who doesn't worry
about little things like international law when he decides to
invade a country. He's "what you call a leader," declared
Rudy Giuliani after Russia invaded Ukraine. ...
Reply
Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 11:09 AM
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
'when Mr. Putin published an article attacking American
exceptionalism, Mr. Trump called it a "masterpiece."'
Duality: Clinton
had no animus in breaking the law concerning lost public
records and mishandling security information, but Putin is
evil!
What they gave Trump is an 'assessment', appeal to
authority all Krugman wants.
Same kind of 'assessment' that gave you Iraq.
The main plea coming from the media, war corporatists and
the distraught is: we cannot ignore the spook's assessments.
Neolibs are different than their equals in the GOP because
they care about the feelings of war mongers and cannot keep
them from their wars of profit.
Reply
Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 11:24 AM
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to ilsm...
You may have been right in thinking that
the need to seem hawkish when chasing the
presidency is no longer essential, at least
with regard to Russia.
Now I have secretly believed all
along that
US and them have been 2 sides of the same coin,
brash, arrogant, yada yada. Perhaps we can do
some bizness together, yes?
Maybe they could use a half-decent missile
defense system, priced to sell.
Reply
Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 03:32 PM
libezkova said in reply to ilsm...
Neocons just dusted off Senator McCarthy play book and
changed "communists" into "Russian agents."
The fact that Krugman would eventually join neo-McCarthyism
witch hunt was given. What else would you expect? Working for
NYT carries certain obligations. Add to this his former
cheerleading for Hillary. So Krugman's behavior as a
political commentator is far from surprising. He just carries
water for the US neocons.
"Russians are coming" is now the rallying cry of the
neocons/neolibs in Washington. Who are concerned not about
the country and it security against foreign intelligence
efforts (many of then are "Israel first" types), but about
losing their lucrative sinecures.
Some suggested that McCarthy witch hunt (the crusade against
communist subversives) which started in February 9, 1950, was
a smoke screen to suppress questions about large influx of
former Nazi specialists into the USA, and also the way to
prepare the US population to possible war with the USSR,
which was on the drawing boards since 1945.
The plans to bomb with A-bombs key Soviet sites while Soviets
do not have nuclear bombs to retaliate were created even the
end of WWII.
== quote ==
Interestingly enough, then British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill had ordered the British Armed Forces' Joint
Planning Staff to develop a strategy targeting the USSR
months before the end of the Second World War. The first
edition of the plan was prepared on May 22, 1945. In
accordance with the plan the invasion of Russia-held Europe
by the Allied forces was scheduled on July 1, 1945.
...The plan, dubbed Operation Unthinkable, stated that its
primary goal was "to impose upon Russia the will of the
United States and the British Empire.
... ... ...
The British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff underscored
that the Allied Forces would win in the event of
1) the occupation of such metropolitan areas of Russia so
that the war making capacity of the country would be reduced
to a point to which further resistance would become
impossible";
2) "such a decisive defeat of the Russian forces in the field
as to render it impossible for the USSR to continue the war."
... ... ...
...after the United States "tested" its nuclear arsenal in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, Churchill and
right-wing American policy makers started to persuade the
White House to bomb the USSR.
A nuclear strike against Soviet Russia, exhausted by the war
with Germany, would have led to the defeat of the Kremlin at
the same time allowing the Allied Forces to avoid US and
British military casualties, Churchill insisted.
Needless to say, the former British Prime Minister did not
care about the death of tens of thousands of Russian peaceful
civilians which were already hit severely by the four-year
war nightmare.
"He [Churchill] pointed out that if an atomic bomb could be
dropped on the Kremlin, wiping it out, it would be a very
easy problem to handle the balance of Russia, which would be
without direction," an unclassified note from the FBI archive
read.
... ... ...
Unthinkable as it may seem, Churchill's plan literally won
the hearts and minds of US policy makers and military
officials. Between 1945 and the USSR's first detonation of a
nuclear device in 1949, the Pentagon developed at least nine
nuclear war plans targeting Soviet Russia, according to US
researchers Dr. Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod.
In their book "To Win a Nuclear War: the Pentagon's Secret
War Plans," based on declassified top secret documents
obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the
researchers exposed the US military's strategies to initiate
a nuclear war with Russia.
"The names given to these plans graphically portray their
offensive purpose: Bushwhacker, Broiler, Sizzle, Shakedown,
Offtackle, Dropshot, Trojan, Pincher, and Frolic. The US
military knew the offensive nature of the job President
Truman had ordered them to prepare for and had named their
war plans accordingly," remarked American scholar J.W. Smith
("The World's Wasted Wealth 2").
These "first-strike" plans developed by the Pentagon were
aimed at destroying the USSR without any damage to the United
States.
The 1949 Dropshot plan envisaged that the US would attack
Soviet Russia and drop at least 300 nuclear bombs and 20,000
tons of conventional bombs on 200 targets in 100 urban areas,
including Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg). In addition,
the planners offered to kick off a major land campaign
against the USSR to win a "complete victory" over the Soviet
Union together with the European allies. According to the
plan Washington would start the war on January 1, 1957.
http://russia-insider.com/en/history/1945-49-us-and-uk-planned-bomb-russia-stone-age/ri9530
== end of the quote ===
I think neocons are extremely worried about possible changes
in foreign policy, Trump administration might implement. And
they have quite a lot to hide, which might come into clear
after Trump enters White House. And this time much more is in
stake, then Obama birth certificate. So they want some kind
of "immunity deal." similar to what Trump already (and
probably prematurely) promised to Clintons.
That's why they now work overtime to delegitimize Trump.
Obama action with the expulsion of Russian diplomats belongs
to the same category. He was trying to force Trump hand and
protect his neoliberal "legacy" (and associated skeletons in
the closet) in very Machiavellian way.
What is also not surprising is that those intelligence
agencies conveniently forget the USA behavior in Russian
Presidential elections of 2011-2012 when they tried to stage
a color revolution (called "While revolution").
Ambassador McFaul was involved as well as all major US NGO
such as NED. McFaul left the country soon after elections,
NED was kicked out.
WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia
Threat While Public Is Deceived
By Glenn Greenwald
IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two
blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral:
one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of "fake
news," the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid.
Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a
humiliating editor's note grudgingly acknowledging that the
core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was
posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original
article; the other was buried the following day at the
bottom.
The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far
worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when
it became clear that there was no "penetration of the U.S.
electricity grid" as the Post had claimed. In addition to the
editor's note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now
has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article
admitting that "the incident is not linked to any Russian
government effort to target or hack the utility" and there
may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.
But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper,
they are also richly rewarding. That's because journalists -
including those at the Post - aggressively hype and promote
the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that
they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the
paper's executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about
how profitable the paper has become).
After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear
levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the
process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable
news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently
note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way
possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny
fraction of people who were exposed to the original false
story end up learning of the retractions....
Reply
Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 07:40 AM
Peter K. said in reply to anne...
Since the Washington Post was bought by Amazon billionaire
Jeff Bezos, it's nice to see that the quality of their
journalism hasn't improved.
In fact they fired Harold
Meyerson who used to be a good quality lefty.
Apparently he criticized progressive neoliberalism too
much and had to go.
Reply
Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 07:46 AM
ilsm said in reply to anne...
Putin has to be evil, all the phony evidence* points to it!
The Russia run by Putin have to be evil because if they are
not then the CIA is lying, US cannot have the spooks who run
up jihadis against nations and see yellow cake seen as less
than crusaders for the empire.
Worse if Putin is not evil the US should not run NATO up
to Moscow!
The MSM is building a case to do Putin like the one to do
Assad.
The service is an example of propaganda using "deductive
reasoning"; a journalist interviewing lots of propagandists
and using their spin to support an hypothesis that is Clinton
Mrs Kagan/Nuland neocon bat crazy!
The fake image is what the neocons want us to believe
about the dire threat from Putin!
At least once a year Barry posts the cheat sheet, then he
sets out hundreds of examples in his reads.
Tonight we were presented with the
one-on-one interview between Sean Hannity and WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange. In the first segment that Hannity
showed, Assange stated that Rushua was not involved in
providing WikiLeaks with the hacked emails from the DNC or
John Podesta, and neither was a state party. Assange, who
is confined to the Ecuadorean embassy in London due to a
warrant for sexual assault in Sweden, was asked if
President Barack Obama was lying when claiming Rushuaans
were behind the hacks since Assange is saying Rushua
wasn't involved. "Well, he is acting like a lawyer," he
noted. "If you look at most of his statements he doesn't
say that. He doesn't say WikiLeaks obtained its
information from Rushua, worked with Rushua." Later on,
when describing why Obama had a dramatic response to
Rushua via sanctions, Assange says he is "trying to
delegitimize the Trump Administration as it goes into the
White House."Hannity Julian Assange FULL Interview 1/3/17.
Sean Hannity gave us a preview of his revealing exclusive
interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, which
will air on Fox News Channel tonight at 10pm ET. Assange
spoke for about 90 minutes at the Ecuadorian embassy in
London, where he has remained for four-and-a-half years
under threat of arrest. Hannity said they discussed "the
state of journalism" in the United States and what was not
covered by the media when it came to the contents of the
hacked emails.
Spc Garza
19
hours ago
This guy is way to smart for the government lol!!!
Stay safe
Jakareh75
17
hours ago
Julian Assange has more integrity in one fingernail
than does the entire mainstream media. And that is
why he's under a bogus indictment for rape by
Sweden, the same country that allows Muslim
subhumans scores of their women every day with
impunity. The rotten liberals who run Sweden go
after Julian Assange but not their Muslim pets.
Alex Phillips
16
hours ago
as a fellow Australian i find it absolutely fucking
disgraceful that our government isn't fighting tooth
and nail to clear Julian's name. .....stand strong
Julian. ....walk with your head held high. ....keep
on doing what you are doing. ....god bless you and
keep you safe.
Arisen Hemloc
21
minutes ago
Alex: I wouldn't call us Fascist. Fascist
governments are hard to fully achieve
because they require so many attributes in
comparison to other extremes like
Communism. It needs to be Nationalistic
(which, let's face, we're not at the
moment), a dictatorship (which, we're not
yet), Authoritarian to the extreme (we're
VERY close to that), and quite a few other
qualities. But regardless, Australia is
clamped down by regulations and laws which
choke business, a moron who wants a Carbon
Tax (useless. Doesn't even help Climate
Change if you believe in it), Emissions
Trading Scheme (Again, worthless) and has
the political sense of a rock, stupid
Socialist departments that aren't working (Centrelink)
because the economy is so blotto, we've got
gun laws that will probably lead to us all
getting machine gunned down by some Islamic
with an AK and slowly our borders are
becoming less and less secure. We're at the
point of America at the moment, not Germany
or France yet, but getting there. Only our
Ocean protects us from that. Under Rudd and
Gillard, we were moving heavily Socialist.
Under Abbot, in an attempt to fix the
damage they did, he shoved us too far the
other way. We need a Trump now and I get a
feeling it'll come from a coalition between
Hansen and Bernardi. Bernardi is
considering, if he hasn't already, leaving
the Liberals and starting a real
Conservative Party for the people, but to
get into power he'll need a coalition.
Either that or someone in the Liberals will
need to get rid of Turnbull and fix our
system. We can't trust Labor because they
have that Union boss creep Shorten as their
leader and he's nuttier than Rudd. It's
sad, but Assange will not be allowed back
into Australia or helped by Australia while
our current cycle of nut job politics keep
on going. We need Howard or Menzies back.
Also, for you Americans, our politicians
aren't as corrupt as yours (the Labor
maybe), but ours are just incompetent 75%
of the time.
Stacey Johnson
21
hours ago
This was a great interview. Hopefully now that
Assange has established for the millionth time that
Russia did not hack, we (as in all truth media
outlets like RT, Hannity, etc) need to stop focusing
on and talking about who did the hacking. Its time
to start investigating, talking about and exposing
the actual content of the emails, all of them not
just the ones that expose the media and campaign
corruption. Yet RT, Hannity, etc are not talking
about it or asking the questions that need to be
asked or investigating it. Why isn't anyone asking
about the Clinton foundation and its link to human
trafficking or why Monica Peterson was found dead
while investigating it?? Why isn't anyone asking
Podesta to explain all the strange and suspicious
code talk that is factual signs, symbols and code
words for pedophilia used over and over in these
emails? Why aren't they asking about the ties and
connections to occult rituals? Why aren't they
asking about the sickening art collections? Why
aren't they asking about the strange and
inappropriate happenings that go on at Ping Pong
Pizza? The flight logs of the Lolita express, which
is owned by a convicted sex offender, to "orgy
island"? Clinton's reasons for going there without
secret service detail on numerous occasions? The
deaths of so many people connected to the
Clinton's?? I still don't understand why these
things are still not being talked about?!?!
PopTartsAndCinemax
7
hours ago
Saudi Arabia bankrolled HRC's campaign but please,
tell us how the Russians are interfering in the
election... lol...
John S
5
hours ago
SA is using US $$ and weapons via Hillary's state
department to bankroll ISIS. But please, more
Russia!!
Paul X
11
hours ago
Hannity worries about where Assange draws the line,
and whether his releases might endanger human lives
(those of spies, I suppose). The problem with that
line is that human lives are endangered no matter
what! If Assange releases information, some lives
are endangered. If he doesn't, other lives are
endangered. Let's face it, Madeleine Albright said
that it was "worth it" if half a million Iraqi
people were killed in the pursuit of American
imperialist ambitions. And let's face it, if spies'
lives are endangered, well they signed up for that
danger. It's part of their job to deal with it. If
the release of truth endangers them, then maybe they
are doing something they shouldn't be doing. I don't
for a second believe the American (or any other)
ruling class gives a rat's ass about the lives of
ordinary peons being endangered.
Cam Smith
1
hour ago
Great interview by Mr. Hannity! And thank you Mr.
Assange for your dedication to the truth!
Jolly Froster
2
hours ago
Assange created wikileaks to give more info to
voters to stop wars. Hillary and the neocons wanted
war with Russia through her no fly zone so the
Saudis could get their pipeline in Syria. Hilary was
stopped. So now they are using wikileaks to try and
start the war.
Gary McAleer
1
hour ago
Everyone in the msm calls Julian Assange a liar when
he emphatically said that Russia was not the source
of the Clinton or Podesta emails. I'll take Julian's
impartial word over the politically selfish
interests here in America. Frankly, I'm sick and
tired of all the disinformation Americans have been
fed. Deliberate liars will be met with fire on "the
resurrection of damnation." "The wicked shall
perish: and shall be as the fat of lambs: into smoke
shall they consume away." Ps.37. So many in this
country lie as easily as they breathe. Their lies
will be their ruin.
Michael Snow
2
hours ago
Tonight, on PBS Nightly Business Report (NBR)
produced by CNBC, the reference to 'Russian hacking'
smeared Julian Assange as a 'fugitve from criminal
justice' in the USA.
Rod Ruger
11
hours ago
True, proven information is anathema to governments
that seeks tyranny. The goal of such governments is
to befuddle, misinform, instill fear, and otherwise
keep citizens in a fog.
George G
19
hours ago
WOW Assange is so much more credible than Obama and
his cooked up Intel narrative. The only facts that
truly point to a crime is that WIKILEAKS revealed
crimes committed by the democrate which included
Obama and it needs to be prosecuted AFTER HE LEAVES
OFFICE!
AntonBatey
11
hours ago
I have always supported Julian Assange. I do not
like Sean Hannity and disagree with him roughly 90
percent of the time. If Julian Assange attempted to
sabotage Donald Trump (and by default helping
Hillary Clinton) and continued to expose the war
crimes and internal emails exposing America's
imperialist interests, Hannity would brush him off
as a traitor and would claim that nothing he said
should be trusted or believed. But he helped Trump
and (appropriately) exposed Hillary Clinton was a
warmongering corporate shill who helped sabotage
Bernie Sanders, so Hannity lends his words as
credible.
Barbara Mowrey
20
hours ago
Like a lawyer, means, double talk . To seem legit
through actions and talk, alone, with no evidence,
hoping the action, or subpoena to make act, (send
diplomats out of the country) is that "tangible"
evidence when it is not even close! Double talk.
Keep em guessing to stay legit, again. Make evidence
when none exists.
Laine Gordon
15
hours ago (edited)
podesta's own email said the clinton foundation leak
was eric braverman, missing for months now. and in
podesta's own words, he fingered braverman as the
leak. you really have to be willfully blind at this
point to think otherwise
Laine Gordon
15
hours ago
he looks good..healthy considering what TPTB are
doing to him, for providing a legitimate platform
for whistleblowers ,...how much clearer could he
have been? a LEAK, not a HACK,...an individual
unrelated to russian state. and since he hinted
during a netherlands interview last year that the
source ( which he has always refused to name , to
protect the integrity and safety of the source) was
seth rich, not to mention the ex ambassador
admitting he received material from the
whistleblower in a park near AU, the Dems' trying to
start WW3 with russia seems like theatre of the
absurd
Gamer Boy
5
hours ago
HOLD UP HOLD UP HOLD UP Will someone look at the
first question Julian answers about "did he think
Trump would win" He says someone hacked/leaked it
who wanted to get more donations for her to win,
because if the people thought she was losing that
more money would come in upwards of 5 Billion and
she had only gotten 1.5 billion so far!!! So she
needed that push to put her down in the polls for
more money to come in. so it could have been someone
in the Media industry as he says who wanted more for
money, the DNC... I don't know but someone smart
please look into this. Did Russia need money from
her? who wanted to get her donations up to 5
billion. Watch his very first answer over and over
it's right there! lets figure it out!!
"... The US nomenclatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign. No "break up the banks", no "free public college", no "medicare for all", no campaign funding reform. ..."
"... At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally fragile and its members have shied away from the kind of radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace. Nonetheless, Democrats will soon face enormously risky decisions. ..."
"... I do wonder how years went by with no one in the Obama administration wavering from their belief that they couldn't prosecute any of the banksters. These didn't just make bad loans. They stole homes. If you're going to steal, steal big, has long been the lesson. ..."
The US nomenclatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election
issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign. No "break
up the banks", no "free public college", no "medicare for all", no campaign funding reform.
For a while we had the Russian hacking accusations, which have suddenly gone dormant (will we
ever get proof?). Now we have divide and conquer identity issues. But no proposed alternatives to
Trump for curing our economic malaise along the lines suggested by Sanders.
We are headed back to business as usual, with the right fighting the so-called center left (our
two neoliberal factions) for dominance. Apparently conditions have not deteriorated enough yet for
a populist uprising. How much more does it take before we reach a critical mass?
Some change is happening. Even Cuomo is now seeking the seal of approval from Bernie for supporting
a new college tuition plan for families making less than $125,000.
It's going to be a slow process though. There is a group within the Democratic Party that is
on the way out historically, and they want to do nothing other than turn the Party's politics
into nothing but vendettas, distraction and obstruction.
This is classic Cuomo. Give a bit to the right - then a bit to the left. Of course the ultra-rich
Uppity East Siders are whining we can't afford this while the Green Party is upset it does not
also cover food and rent. You can't win in NYC politics no matter what you do.
" At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally fragile and its members have shied
away from the kind of radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace. Nonetheless, Democrats
will soon face enormously risky decisions.
Does the party move left, as a choice of Keith Ellison for D.N.C. chairman would suggest? Does
it wait for internecine conflict to emerge among Republicans as Trump and his allies fulfill campaign
promises - repealing Obamacare, enacting tax reform and deporting millions of undocumented aliens?"
It's funny how there has been no discussion of the DNC chair contest, and yet the progressive
neoliberals here still whine that the forum isn't an echo chamber which reflects their views.
And then they fantasize about banning people with whom they disagree.
State governments famously (or infamously) give away billions in tax breaks to lure in firms that
make jobs. 19 Republican governors -- by rejecting Medicaid expansion -- have rejected TAKING
IN federal tax money to generate good medical jobs, not to mention the multiplier effect of new
spending ...
.. and it's the states' own money that they sent to the federal government that they don't
want to TAKE BACK ...
... oh, almost forgot; it's good for uninsured poor people too (almost forgot about that).
There was a reason why the Annapolis Convention that led almost directly to the Constitutional
convention was organized on the need to stop interjurisdictional competition in the favoring of
commercial interests so as to favor uniform commerce rules across the US, should the national
legislature exercise on the matter.
I sure like competition, recognize the federal system as a having great socio-political value,
even appreciate non-uniformity until it grabs the attention of more thoughtful view (experimentation),
but more and more I think Congress should enact the law to proscribe these crony actions by States.
Many politicians, and I've worked with many at the State level would appreciate it if these pandering
and favoring pleadings just went away.
Fed Officials See Faster Economic Growth Under Trump, but No Boom
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
JAN. 4, 2017
"Ms. Yellen has warned that fiscal stimulus, like a tax cut or a spending increase, could increase
economic growth to an unsustainable pace in the near term, resulting in increased inflation. The
Fed quite likely would seek to offset such policies by raising interest rates more quickly."
Progressive neoliberalism...
And Alan Blinder said Hillary's fiscal plans wouldn't be large enough to cause the Fed to alter
its path of rate hikes.
And Trump promised more better infrastructure like clean airports.
An update on the Chevy Cruze controversy. US consumption was 194,500 vehicles with 190,000 made
here in the US. That's 97.7% of them being produced locally. Tweet that.
I do wonder how years went by with no one in the Obama administration wavering from their belief
that they couldn't prosecute any of the banksters. These didn't just make bad loans. They stole homes. If you're going to steal, steal big, has long been the lesson.
Can you spend time on the republicans too?
Just asking for a little balance. You and I both share a dismay about the last eight years
and the presidential campaign. Your energy focused on the party in power now, even a bit, would
probably be helpful.
The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition
By Glenn Greenwald
The British political and media establishment incrementally lost its collective mind over the
election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the country's Labour Party, and its unraveling and implosion
show no signs of receding yet. Bernie Sanders is nowhere near as radical as Corbyn; they are not
even in the same universe. But, especially on economic issues, Sanders is a more fundamental, systemic
critic than the oligarchical power centers are willing to tolerate, and his rejection of corporate
dominance over politics, and corporate support for his campaigns, is particularly menacing. He is
thus regarded as America's version of a far-left extremist, threatening establishment power.
For those who observed the unfolding of the British reaction to Corbyn's victory, it's been fascinating
to watch the D.C./Democratic establishment's reaction to Sanders' emergence replicate that, reading
from the same script. I personally think Clinton's nomination is extremely likely, but evidence of
a growing Sanders movement is unmistakable. Because of the broader trends driving it, this is clearly
unsettling to establishment Democrats - as it should be.
A poll last week found that Sanders has a large lead with millennial voters, including young women;
as Rolling Stone put it: "Young female voters support Bernie Sanders by an expansive margin." The
New York Times yesterday trumpeted that, in New Hampshire, Sanders "has jumped out to a 27 percentage
point lead," which is "stunning by New Hampshire standards." The Wall Street Journal yesterday, in
an editorial titled "Taking Sanders Seriously," declared it is "no longer impossible to imagine the
74-year-old socialist as the Democratic nominee."
Just as was true for Corbyn, there is a direct correlation between the strength of Sanders and
the intensity of the bitter and ugly attacks unleashed at him by the D.C. and Democratic political
and media establishment. There were, roughly speaking, seven stages to this establishment revolt
in the U.K. against Corbyn, and the U.S. reaction to Sanders is closely following the same script:
STAGE 1
: Polite condescension toward what is perceived to be harmless (we think it's really
wonderful that your views are being aired).
STAGE 2
: Light, casual mockery as the self-belief among supporters grows (no, dears, a left-wing
extremist will not win, but it's nice to see you excited).
STAGE 3
: Self-pity and angry etiquette lectures directed at supporters upon realization that
they are not performing their duty of meek surrender, flavored with heavy doses of concern trolling
(nobody but nobody is as rude and gauche online to journalists as these crusaders, and it's unfortunately
hurting their candidate's cause!).
STAGE 4
: Smear the candidate and his supporters with innuendos of sexism and racism by falsely
claiming only white men support them (you like this candidate because he's white and male like
you, not because of ideology or policy or contempt for the party establishment's corporatist,
pro-war approach).
STAGE 5
: Brazen invocation of right-wing attacks to marginalize and demonize, as polls prove
the candidate is a credible threat (he's weak on terrorism, will surrender to ISIS, has crazy
associations, and is a clone of Mao and Stalin).
STAGE 6
: Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse if the establishment
candidate is rejected, as the possibility of losing becomes imminent (you are destined for decades,
perhaps even generations, of powerlessness if you disobey our decrees about who to select).
STAGE 7
: Full-scale and unrestrained meltdown, panic, lashing-out, threats, recriminations,
self-important foot-stomping, overt union with the Right, complete fury (I can no longer in good
conscience support this party of misfits, terrorist-lovers, communists, and heathens).
Britain is well into Stage 7, and may even invent a whole new level (anonymous British military
officials expressly threatened a "mutiny" if Corbyn were democratically elected as prime minister).
The Democratic media and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and is
now entering Stage 6. The arrival of Stage 7 is guaranteed if Sanders wins Iowa.
It's both expected and legitimate in elections for the campaigns to harshly criticize one another.
There's nothing wrong with that; we should all want contrasts drawn, and it's hardly surprising that
this will be done with aggression and acrimony. People go to extremes to acquire power: That's just
human nature.
But that doesn't mean one can't find meaning in the specific attacks that are chosen, nor does
it mean that the attacks invoked are immune from critique (the crass, cynical exploitation of gender
issues by Clinton supporters to imply Sanders support is grounded in sexism was particularly slimy
and dishonest given that the same left-wing factions that support Sanders spent months literally
pleading with Elizabeth Warren to challenge Clinton, to say nothing of the large numbers of female
Sanders supporters whose existence was nullified by those attacks).
People in both parties, and across the political spectrum, are disgusted by the bipartisan D.C.
establishment. It's hardly mysterious why large numbers of adults in the U.S. want to find an alternative
to a candidate like Clinton who is drowning both politically and personally in Wall Street money,
who seems unable to find a war she dislikes, and whose only political conviction seems to be that
anything is justifiably said or done to secure her empowerment - just as it was hardly a mystery
why adults in the U.K. were desperate to find an alternative to the craven, war-loving, left-hating
Blairites who have enormous amounts of blood stained indelibly on their hands.
But the nature of "establishments" is that they cling desperately to power, and will attack anyone
who defies or challenges that power with unrestrained fervor. That's what we saw in the U.K. with
the emergence of Corbyn, and what we're seeing now with the threat posed by Sanders. It's not surprising
that the attacks in both cases are similar - the dynamic of establishment prerogative is the same
- but it's nonetheless striking how identical is the script used in both cases.
Bill Clinton branded Jeremy Corbyn 'maddest person in the room', leaked speech reveals
By Joe Watts
Bill Clinton branded Labour's Jeremy Corbyn the "maddest person in the room" in a speech
he gave explaining the resurgence of left-wing politics in Europe and America.
Documents released by Wikileaks show the former President joked that when Mr Corbyn won
his leadership contest, it appeared Labour had just "got a guy off the street" to run the party.
He compared Mr Corbyn's rise to the success of Alexis Tsipras in Greece and Bernie Sanders
in US primaries.
In one section of the speech, Mr Clinton said Labour had disposed of one potentially successful
leader, David Miliband, because they were "mad at him for being part of Tony Blair's government
in the Iraq War".
He went on: "They moved to the left and put his brother in as leader because the British
labor movement wanted it.
"When David Cameron thumped him in the election, they reached the interesting conclusion
that they lost because they hadn't moved far left enough, and so they went out and practically
got a guy off the street to be the leader of the British Labor Party [sic]."
Mr Clinton added: "But what that is reflective of – the same thing happened in the Greek
election – when people feel they've been shafted and they don't expect anything to happen anyway,
they just want the maddest person in the room to represent them." ...
Now, many of the same idiots who pushed the Iraq war lies are stirring up hysteria about Russia.
For example, the Washington Post's editorial page editor Fred Hiatt
cheerleaded for the Iraq war. Now, the Washington Post under Hiatt's leadership has been
the main source of the most
breathless anti-Russian hysteria .
ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd – chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney '04 presidential
campaign – was a
big booster for the Iraq war. Now, Dowd Tweets that you're only a patriot if you
blindly accept what President Obama and the intelligence services claim without any proof.
George W. Bush's speechwriter David Frum – who pushed
many of the biggest lies about the Iraq war – is now
trying to ridicule
anyone who doesn't accept the evidence-less claims that Russia hacked the Democratic party as
a Kremlin stooge.
Similarly, Jonathan Chait
championed
the Iraq war. And now
he's ridiculing those asking for evidence before jumping headlong into anti-Russia hysteria.
These guys all have a track record of pushing false stories which get us into disastrous wars
why should we listen to them now?
CRM114 •Jan 2, 2017 12:27 PM
I was at the sharp end of the Cold War, defending against a REAL Soviet threat. I am well acquainted
with psyops and insidious means of destabilizing a state.
The idea that Russia is behind this is just total BS.
Any attack on this supposed scale produces evidence, and whilst much of it cannot be directly
revealed (to protect sources), there would be quite sufficient to be presented, if it existed.
It doesn't.
And whilst we are at it, the arguments for the Invasion of Iraq were BS also, and that was clear
to many in the military despite being cheerled by the MSM.
There's no cost involved. They are advisors and propagandists nputting ideas into the heads of people
with real authority. If they had to repay the price others paid for their slogans, or even more,
had to put on BDUs and go put them into action, we'd hear a lot less of them.
Almost all comments on MSM are anti Russia. These comments are at a higher level of writing and intellect
than the typical SJW post. Someone is financing this social media campaign. People aren't
stupid but we do have a herd mentality. If everyone around me believes X, they must be correct,
right. Thank God for ZH.
The ziocons are pissed, they had Russia all wrapped for the NWO 10 years ago and blew it. Now
they want it back to finish their plans and are willing to sacrifice the rest of us for it.
Ziocons are just fronting the Roman Anti-Christ, just as their Khazar ancestors were doing the actual
hammering of the impalement stake up through the Body of Our Lord on Golgotha.
The "good cop/bad cop" satanic psychopathy's got it going on for thousands of years: the Seventh
Head of the Beast.
Time for the Beast to be cast down as the Apocalypse is already upon True Israel, America, but
to Satan's liars and pedophile homosexuals. #Pizzagate
Stupid is the usual fallback position, as in How Could We Have Been So Wrong? Good-hearted by
soft-headed. We all make mistakes, don't we?
Crazy is out there, even after all these years, seeing Commies under every bed. Spy movies tell
the honest truth.
Evil is pretty much everything else. Simply taking it as a position to be promoted is, in the
end, the same thing as thinking up the lies. Thinking of it as just a move in a game. Enjoying chaos
for its own sake.
There's a website called "Right Web" that purports to track militarists' efforts to influence US
foreign policy and it's another resource to do research on individuals (
http://rightweb.irc-online.org )
They do work. Most of the population ignores all of this. Many who attempt to pay
attention believe the government lies. That leaves the rest of us who believe the government
and their media mouthpieces are full of shit. The lies work on us too, in the sense that
even if they know we know they're full of shit, what the fuck can we do about it? They are
at the point where they truly believe they can get away with anything.
thanks GW..these idiots (clever and smart as they are)..see a NWO bankster run one world .gov..and
Trump USA with Russia..is a big threat to that..Putin and Trump can see this as well as anyone of
us..what they do about it? in the old days hang em high..traitors to the constitution deserve harsh
ends. Justice has been denied far far too long..
Let me see if I have this visual correct, A bunch of former W staff folks are promoting fake
news so that 0bama can maintain his "...it's the Russians!" narrative. All I need to see now
is 0bama pointing at their propaganda for one more, "...see?!...but Bush!" to close out his "legacy"
as president.
I'm perplexed about all the focus on the hacked / leaked emails by the "Russians" but not a peep
about what's in the emails. Not one word (that I know of) about how the information is not true,
faked or doctored. So, the only thing the email leak did was expose the truth about a group.
Just can't make this shit up. That is like being outraged because a pedophile has been exposed
by some email leak. What is wrong with exposing the truth? This isn't a group that that is entitled
to privacy and no scrutiny like a regular citizen if anything they should be subject to scrutiny
with all their public affairs; what they do in private is a different story.
Ask yourself why are they so upset – for exposing their real colors and the truth? Too funny.
well one reason the legacy media is outraged is it makes even more apparent how little investigative
journalism is being done by them on their slowly clocking out watch.
they are just better at stenography done in really nice restaurants and at taking sides: it pays
better and it's more fun.
I can't quite recall. Was it Russia that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine
and replaced it with a government led, in large part, by NAZIS?
Oh, now I remember. No. No, it wasn't Russia that did that. That was the good old USA.
"... This kind of stuff has been going on for YEARS. Multiple countries, multiple blogs, news sites, Facebook and Twitter accounts. The US does it too. Corporations do it; political parties do it; David Brock does it; and people in other countries do it. It may or may not be state coordinated, in any given case. And it's probably not actually illegal in most of these cases. Yes, of course people in other countries have preferences about who wins our elections. We live in a big new internet-connected world, where all kinds of folks are constantly trying to influence outcomes of various kinds in other countries. Grow up. ..."
"... After releasing to the surprised world Flame ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_%28malware%29 ) and Stuxnet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet ) not much was left to disclose. ..."
"... Add to this Snowden revelations and you have the situation when you can be almost completely open about methods you use (the most interesting part is how multiple levels of indirection are traced -- Snowden used this NSA program against Chinese hackers -- so it's existence is no longer secret staff. Simplifying you need something like traceroute via VPN channels ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute ). But there can be proxies in the middle so the whole thing is very complex. ..."
"... Yeah, sounds a whole lot like that Nigerian uranium and Saddam's weapons. I was told back then also that the intelligence was just too sensitive to reveal. Sources and methods and all that. ..."
"... Good to see Matt Bruenig, Noah Smith and few others keeping their heads on their shoulders and trying to put the focus on policy. ..."
"... Do you really assume that the amount of "compromat" that Russia has on Clintons (and especially Clinton Foundation, which is a real ticking bomb) is less valuable that Trump fuzzy desire to normalize relations, which can change any time (and may be dictated by the desire to drive a wedge in Russia relations with China). ..."
"... Clinton is "the devil that we know" for Russia. Trump is "the devil that we don't". ..."
"... It is also unclear to what extent Presidents, being now to a certain extent just ceremonial figureheads legitimizing the existence of "deep state" can change the foreign policy course, which remains remarkably consistent for the last six US administrations (Clinton+Bush+Obama x 2 ). ..."
Now everybody can study them and learn from the masters of Cyberwarfare
sanjait -> Dan Kervick...
The US isn't going to release intelligence sources but it's really really easy to see who Russia
favored in the election and evidence of their efforts to influence it.
Exactly - even a moron (without a political agenda) will look at the publicly available information
and concluded that we are already past any "reasonable doubt".
Then there is all the additional material that simply cannot be released because it would help
the adversaries plug certain channels of counter intelligence.
It is a fact that the hackers were Russian. It is a fact that the only viable motive to release
that material the way it was (timed to inflict maximum damage on HRC) would be to lower the chances
of Hilary being elected. It is a fact that nobody in Russia would dare to challenge Putin's authority
and release this material without his knowledge.
However, tomorrow the great Orange will be informed about the facts and it will not make him
change his conclusion that the facts are wrong and he the great Trump and his great inside (from
Kremlin) sources have proven that it was not Russia. The Trump bobbleheads and associated clowns
will agree not because Trump had any evidence but because he told them what they wanted to hear.
Though for me the most compelling evidence was the simple observation that paid commenters
(with only moderate English speaking capability and no comment history, often from brand new Facebook
accounts) appeared with such frequency in comment sections of sites like WAPO and other major
news organizations, and the associated reporting with first person non-anonymous accounts of how
Russia ran farms for such paid comments.
The strangest part of this is how many useful idiots (in the classic sense) like Kervick exist
out there with various forms of apologetics for these actions.
This kind of stuff has been going on for YEARS. Multiple countries, multiple blogs, news sites,
Facebook and Twitter accounts. The US does it too. Corporations do it; political parties do it;
David Brock does it; and people in other countries do it. It may or may not be state coordinated,
in any given case. And it's probably not actually illegal in most of these cases. Yes, of course
people in other countries have preferences about who wins our elections. We live in a big new
internet-connected world, where all kinds of folks are constantly trying to influence outcomes
of various kinds in other countries. Grow up.
Not that one is short and just needs to plow into those Cheerios, but this is a parent speaking
to their child(ren), yes?
Deplorable(s).
This too, is part of the same exchange: not merely commander to commanded, but deaf to any other
view that might be characterized as a dialog between adults who are interested in the best path.
As if any dialog could take place between one person with a microphone and public relations team
on the command side and a flock of fans on the other, but I digress.
My favorite is "Suck it up Buttercup" at the sign of any resistance, or reluctance, or indifference
that might indicate you are nothin but a fading flower...sorta blows air in your face twice.
So Dan, I hear you and read most of your posts. And Sanjait's too. And both worth reading among
still others...my standards aren't terribly high.
Your note that the US does it too, might be the understatement of the year. And Sanjait's suggestion
that just as there is an adult-age limit there should be a senility limit too. As close as this
election was, the less capable adults (MCI is easily more than the 3M difference.) explains the
poor polls and the worse outcome.
Add to this Snowden revelations and you have the situation when you can be almost completely
open about methods you use (the most interesting part is how multiple levels of indirection are
traced -- Snowden used this NSA program against Chinese hackers -- so it's existence is no longer secret staff.
Simplifying you need something like traceroute via VPN channels (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute
). But there can be proxies in the middle so the whole thing is very complex.
So when they suggest that certain IPs signify Russian hacking they are insulting average computer
literate person intelligence.
There are some posters in this group who really understand this staff. I don't.
Yeah, sounds a whole lot like that Nigerian uranium and Saddam's weapons. I was told back then
also that the intelligence was just too sensitive to reveal. Sources and methods and all that.
And at the end of the day, the only credible charge is not that Russia hacked "the election",
but that they hacked John Podesta's email.
Anyway, it's water under the bridge. Meanwhile, Donald Trump and the radical Republican Congress
have a reactionary legislative agenda all lined up, and Democrats have done close to squat to
build and articulate a clear, unified and compelling counter-agenda. They are off on a crazy Russian
goose chase. So the Republicans are probably going to pass a lot of their agenda, because Democrats
are putting nothing on the table.
Good to see Matt Bruenig, Noah Smith and few others keeping their heads on their shoulders
and trying to put the focus on policy.
What I Didn't Find in Africa
By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th
WASHINGTON -- Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons
programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have
little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons
program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In
1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein.
(I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George
H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and Săo Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped
direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.
It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information
about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about
that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice
President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never
saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale
of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's.
The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide
a response to the vice president's office.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro
Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission
I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the CIA paid my expenses (my time was
offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of
the United States government.
In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in
the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was
much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze,
I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting
sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit,
leaving only their eyes visible.
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that
are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business.
I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of
uranium sales to Iraq - and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington.
Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been
in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current
government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium
business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction
had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult
for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair
and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the
government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which
in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the
two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the
approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's
simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired....
Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995.
If you have Ph.D you should really be ashamed writing such nonsense.
Do you really assume that the amount of "compromat" that Russia has on Clintons (and especially
Clinton Foundation, which is a real ticking bomb) is less valuable that Trump fuzzy desire to
normalize relations, which can change any time (and may be dictated by the desire to drive a wedge
in Russia relations with China).
Clinton is "the devil that we know" for Russia. Trump is "the devil that we don't".
It is also unclear to what extent Presidents, being now to a certain extent just ceremonial figureheads
legitimizing the existence of "deep state" can change the foreign policy course, which remains
remarkably consistent for the last six US administrations (Clinton+Bush+Obama x 2 ).
Or do you really think that Bolton in State Department is different from Victoria Nuland?
"... The legislation was initiated in March 2016, as the demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia was already underway and was enacted amid the allegations of "Russian hacking" around the U.S. presidential election and the mainstream media's furor over supposedly "fake news." Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives." ..."
"... The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges a new McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with a new Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation." ..."
"... The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the U.S. election. ..."
"... Despite these accusations - leaked by the Obama administration and embraced as true by the mainstream U.S. news media - there is little or no public evidence to support the charges. There is also a contradictory analysis by veteran U.S. intelligence professionals as well as statements by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and an associate, former British Ambassador Craig Murray , that the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Yet, the mainstream U.S. media has virtually ignored this counter-evidence, appearing eager to collaborate with the new "Global Engagement Center" even before it is officially formed. ..."
"... In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that formula with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media. The U.S. government's strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation escalates this information war by tossing another $160 million into the pot. ..."
"... There's a real love fest for Trump on this site and I believe you are all going to be bitterly disappointed in the end. ..."
"... Putin obviously has something on Trump ..."
"... I'm well aware of the propaganda from our government but if you believe it will be better under Trump, you are living in a fairy tale. ..."
"... The Police State requires each person to believe their lies. Paraphrasing a comment attributed to a former CIA operative: "When the only narrative available is ours, we will have done our job". ..."
"... While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" ..."
"... this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
The U.S. government is creating a new $160 million bureaucracy to shut down information that
doesn't conform to U.S. propaganda narratives, building on the strategy that sold the bloody Syrian
"regime change" war, writes Rick Sterling.
The U.S. establishment is not content simply to have domination over the media narratives on critical
foreign policy issues, such as Syria, Ukraine and Russia. It wants total domination. Thus we now
have the "
Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act
" that President Obama signed into law on
Dec. 23 as part of the
National
Defense Authorization Act for 2017 , setting aside $160 million to combat any "propaganda" that
challenges Official Washington's version of reality.
... ... ...
The new law mandates the U.S. Secretary of State to collaborate with the Secretary of Defense,
Director of National Intelligence and other federal agencies to create a Global Engagement Center
"to lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand,
expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining
United States national security interests." The law directs the Center to be formed in 180 days and
to share expertise among agencies and to "coordinate with allied nations."
The legislation was initiated in March 2016, as the demonization of Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Russia was already underway and was enacted amid the allegations of "Russian hacking" around
the U.S. presidential election and the mainstream media's furor over supposedly "fake news." Defeated
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's imperative
that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and
innocent lives."
The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges
a new McCarthyism
about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with
a new Orwellianism
by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center – to
protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation."
As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives, the law authorizes the Center
to: "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among
Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best
practices." (This section is an apparent reference to proposals that Google, Facebook and other technology
companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet sites as
purveyors of "Russian propaganda" or "fake news."
)
Justifying this new bureaucracy, the bill's sponsors argued that the existing agencies for "
strategic communications
" and "
public diplomacy
" were not enough, that the information threat required "a whole-of-government
approach leveraging all elements of national power."
The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the
world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free
claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the
U.S. election.
Despite these accusations - leaked by the Obama administration and embraced as true by the
mainstream U.S. news media - there is
little or no public evidence
to support the charges. There is also a contradictory
analysis
by veteran U.S. intelligence professionals as well as statements by
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange
and an associate,
former British
Ambassador Craig Murray , that the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Yet, the mainstream
U.S. media has virtually ignored this counter-evidence, appearing eager to collaborate with the new
"Global Engagement Center" even before it is officially formed.
Of course, there is a long history of U.S. disinformation and propaganda. Former CIA agents Philip
Agee and John Stockwell documented how it was done decades ago, secretly planting "black propaganda"
and covertly funding media outlets to influence events around the world, with much of the fake news
blowing back into the American media.
In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that formula
with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy
supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and
false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media. The U.S. government's
strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who challenge this orthodoxy. The new
legislation escalates this information war by tossing another $160 million into the pot.
... ... ...
Rick Sterling is an independent investigative journalist. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area
and can be reached at [email protected]
Skip Scott ,
January 1, 2017 at 12:55 pm
Here comes the Ministry of truth.
War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength
Big Brother is watching us.
Abe , January 1, 2017 at 10:21 pm
The information war against reputable independent investigative journalism has been in full
swing for years. $160 million is just the latest shake of piddle.
In addition to the army of paid journalists in mainstream media, "pro-democracy" and "human
rights" NGOs, and assorted limited hangouts we are all too familiar with, there is the new Propaganda
3.0 species of "open source intelligence" scammers, bogus "independent researchers", and corporate-funded
fake "citizen investigative journalists" like Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat, all busily churning
out fake news.
Uncritical journalists have ignored the deeper layer of deception underlying the Washington
Post / PropOrNot imbroglio.
Some "useful idiots" have gone so far as to actively promote the illusion that Bellingcat and
other PropOrNot "Related Projects" are "professional" information sources.
In reality, Google-funded Bellingcat is directly allied with the Washington Post and New York
Times, the two principal mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the Google's
new Ministry of Truth: The First Draft Coalition "partner network".
Note that it was the Washington Post that catapulted PropOrNot to prominence.
True independent investigative journalism is the declared enemy of Google's new Minitrue.
In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Propaganda 3.0 coalition has already demonstrated
its ability to "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification
process" of Western propaganda narratives.
The devil's hands are very busy.
Peter Loeb , January 2, 2017 at 6:44 am
MUST READ .
Tom Anderson: THE DIRTY WAR ON SYRIA
(Global Research, 2016)
(Available at Amazon and probably elsewhere.)
This well documented book explores the arguments presented in Rick Sterling's excellent article above in detail. The book is in defense
of Syria.It includes many references (in English), most available on line.
---------
NOTE: See requests elsewhere in the Defense Appropriation Act of 2017. As always, an APPROPRIATION of amounts is required.
-------
A basic issue can be raised involving any commitment of the next President of the United States to policies of this
Administration and Congress. It is well-known that Donald Trump has not previously shared many of the views on which this
legislation is based.
Senator John McCain, primary sponsor, D-Ariz, does share these views. It needs reminding that that being said, much
of this GOP interest was under the assumption that Hillary Clinton's election was a foregone conclusion.
Though Senator McCain is the sole sponsor of the entire bill in his role as Chairman of the Armed Services
Committee of the Senate, many Democrats joined in the many amendments. were co-sponsored by Democratic
Senators.
Regarding Syria, many of the issues are dealt with in Tom Anderson's book noted above.
--Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Linda Doucett , January 1, 2017 at 11:28 pm
a lot of Soros schills on this thread :)
exiled off mainstreet , January 2, 2017 at 2:13 pm
That is it exactly. The yankee regime has gone over into fascist control of the narrative.
Erstwhile "leftists" like Amy Goodman have jumped the shark and joined the imperialist propaganda
push. Even the ACLU is sponsoring islamofascists like Khisr Khan, who is an apologist for el qaeda
spouting that the Iraq war, a war crime by any objective definition, was 'in defense of constitutional
values. Since courts no longer hold the regime accountable, the fact this is blatantly unconstitutional
and contrary to the rule of law does not seem to mean much. Hopefully, the new administration,
despite the reputation of its leadership, will be less autocratic in practice. As far as I'm concerned,
they all have jumped the shark and the last shreds of legitimacy have disappeared. The entire
existing regime and its acolytes are war criminals and traitors to the rule of law.
Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 12:56 pm
You don't watch Democracy Now much. I've seen all points of view presented there. Perhaps you
should examine with a more open mind. I never supported getting involved in Syria but there was a lot of pressure to do so. It was a
big mistake. The history I know says that climate change had much to do with what happened there.
A severe drought made conditions untenable for the farmers and they started to revolt. Assad handled
what was happening very badly. It was a terrible situation. Assad wan't going to help them but
he generally had the support of the rest of the people. Getting involved there was stupid. There
was no way for intervention to be successful unless it was humanitarian like helping them to help
the farmers Of course intervention is seldom humanitarian and when it is, it's seen as weak an
ineffective by the powerful forces that oppose it.
There's a real love fest for Trump on this site and I believe you are all going to be bitterly
disappointed in the end. Putin obviously has something on Trump and you should be shouting for
his tax returns so we can understand that relationship. We know he's received a lot of money from
Russia. Everyone, including you discount David Corn's research about that relationship. No one wants to
hear it.
Bill Cash- "We know he's [Trump} received a lot of money from Russia."
There is possibly a malicious insinuation here. Was that to support Trump's political campaign,
or was that from business deals – which Trump has in any number of countries?
Bill Cash- "Everyone, including you discount David Corn's research about that relationship
[Trump/Russia]."
Include me in your "everyone". If you mean Corn's article in Mother Jones, it is not "research"
but forwarded innuendos.
As to whether anyone will be "bitterly disappointed" with Trump, that is beside the point –
many of us are deeply concerned with other possible aspects of the coming administration. I am
just glad to see Trump or any prominent US political commentator buck the knee-jerk attempt to
blame Russia for our own troubles. Jerks like that can be hazardous to our health and possibly
our continued existence.
Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 2:10 pm
You think climate change is a problem? Trump thinks it's a hoax. Will climate change provoke
many Syria's around the world? Is Trump building a government of, by and for the very rich?
Putin obviously has something on Trump which all of you are ignoring. Now Trump is saying he knows
more about hacking than everyone else. There's too much in that relationship to be ignored but
you are ignoring it and it will come back to bite us. Trump wants to dismantle the epa, medicare and social security. That should really help the country.
Enjoy Trump while you can. Keep protecting him.
Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 2:44 pm
What proof do you have that Putin has "something" on Trump? It could be that Trump sees opportunities
for business with Russia if there are improved relations. Russia has a lot of natural resources
waiting to be exploited. The military/security/industrial complex is at odds with that idea because
they need their boogeyman.
And why does it always have to be one or the other between Hillary and the Donald? I think
they both suck. My only hope is that he disrupts the power of the deep state warmongers and cleans
house at the CIA And even there, it is only a hope. I am not blindly optimistic.
I doubt there are many of us here at Consortium news that are enjoying or protecting Trump,
but Hillary would have been a disaster as well. Bill Cash is blind not to see that. There was
no lesser of two evils in this election, just two different evils.
Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Get Trump to release his tax returns. Why is he afraid to do that? There is something there
h doesn't want us to see. We know he's received a lot of money from Russia, That's well documented and Putin doesn't allow
that without strings. We know he's had dealings with both the mafia and the Russian mob.
You should be screaming for his tax returns but instead you assume his innocence. You know nothing about me. I do believe Hillary would be better because she believes in global
warming but I was a Bernie supporter. If you know anything about Trump, you know he only acts to help himself, for his own enrichment.
If you don't know that, I can't talk to you. You'd have to give me examples of him ever thinking
outside himself. There has to be something in the Putin relationship that's good for Trump.
Get his tax returns!!!!!
Blahblahblah , January 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Heh, I'm Russian from Russia. 1. Russia is not building any ministry of truth, many western
channels like France 24, BBC, EuroNews and Fox News are part of standard cable TV package here
(at least in Moscow and other major cities). 2. Not sure what image you have of our president,
but blackmailing leaders of other states is America's thing, that's not what Russians do (we send
tanks, threaten or negotiate) – you should stop thinking the whole world acts the same way America
does. 3. I doubt Trump got money from Russia, at least not more than Clinton got from Saudi Arabia
and others, including Ukraine (the latter donated about US$30 million, the former could have donated
up to US$500 million // could you name the amount given by Russia to Trump, which you speak about?).
Anyway, is it really okay that future American president are for sale internationally, regardless
if it's Trump or Clinton? 4. I doubt Russians hacked you since there's still no single proof (What
CIA says and "everyone knows" is not a proof. If you like this type of justice, I suggest you
abolish your whole legal system and replace it with Lynch courts). 5. Lastly, you suggest that
the U.S. s almost uninvolve din Syria. Is it really so? Who are you supplying weapons to then?
Turkish president (Turkey is still NATO member, ally of the U.S.) said he has proof U.S. is supporting
terrorists, mainly ISIL and Al Quaida. Al Quaida were the guys who organized 9/11. I hope you're
proud to be American and of Obama and Clinton.
Blah x3: that was beautiful. It makes me so sick to my stomach that these things can be said
about my country and that I know they are true. For years I blamed the FBI. Or Nixon. Or Ronnie,
or Col. North and Iran Countra, or the Rethugs. Or the CIA Or DIck and Bush. But when Hillary
tried to force herself down our throats in a kind of female felacio (sorry, don't know how to
spell that) and Thomas Frank went after Slick Willy with a cleaver and Matt Taibbi exposed Obama's
financial machinations and Little Debbie Shitz kneecapped the progressives, I finally saw what
the world has been seeing for decades. I love my country, and all I was taught she stood for,
and I know you love your country and her amazing history. I don't like Trump, but if he's the
poison it takes to heal my country so we can get along with yours, here's to poison. Dos vee donya.
( terrible speller. Sorry)
Zachary Smith , January 1, 2017 at 11:57 pm
Trump and climate change = Trump an ignoramus. Hillary and Obama on climate change equaled lots of grand speech-making, no effective actions.
I don't see a significant difference here. And at least in theory, ignorance can be corrected
more easily than cynical indifference chasing the easy money..
Trump building a government of, by and for the very rich? That's right. Hillary and the TPP meant government would be handed to corporations.
Trump wants to dismantle the epa, medicare and social security. Probably. Obama was itching for 8 years to strike a Grand Bargain with the Republicans to dismantle Social
Security. If I was to waste time looking at Hillary and Social Security, I'd expect to find weasel
lawyer talk giving her the same leeway.
Putin obviously had something on Trump. Is this in the same class of "reality" as the Russians
obviously stealing the 2016 election and preparing to destroy the electrical systems in Vermont?
David Corn: I looked at his archives at Mother Jones. He was always frothing at the mouth against
whoever it was who was in the lead in the Republican primary. Mention of Hillary was always a
side factor except in one piece which had this title.
You Go to War With the Hillary Clinton You Have
I examined the piece, and found it summarizes as 'the woman isn't worth a crap, but she's all
we've got.' Corn was a little more explicit about Hillary's faults in 2008. From one of his pieces
then:
I, too, have huffed about Obama's staffing decisions. It remains a mystery to me why Obama
would want to bring into his Big Tent the Clinton circus, which frequently features excessive
spin, backstabbing, leaking and messy melodrama. Sen. Clinton is a smart woman who has stature
and globetrotting experience. But as health-care czar in her husband's administration, she set
back that cause, which is near and dear to the hearts of progressives, by nearly two decades.
That's right – Hillary wasn't worth a crap back in 2008 either, only back then Corn was a bit
more truthful. I've seen that with others – in their 2008 blog posts they were doing to Hillary
what they're doing to Trump now – making an all-out assault. How those people convinced themselves
that 2008 totally evil Hillary was transformed into 2016 Saint Hillary still confounds me.
exiled off mainstreet , January 2, 2017 at 2:19 pm
Trump, if he proves as bad on climate change as feared, can be reversed. If the harpy had gotten
in, she would have said the right words on climate change, but put policies via the "trade pacts"
under extra-legal corrupt corporate arbitration courts who would have been able to sideline the
rule of law in this area and would have established an irreversible corporate regime on climate
change. Since courts long ago ceased to hold to rule of law standards basing their decisions on
extra-legal state secrets and anti-free-speech considerations, and since such extra-legal "trade
pacts" have not even been questioned in US courts, the reality is that this would have meant the
end of serious climate change work. This seems to me to be much more concerning than Trump's rhetoric
on climate change issues, since, whatever the talk, the factual result of the policy would have
been far more odious.
Lin Cleveland , January 1, 2017 at 2:21 pm
" There's a real love fest for Trump on this site "
Me thinks you infer what we do not imply!
D5-5 , January 1, 2017 at 3:07 pm
I watched Democracy Now for over a decade–until recently. I tried to tolerate its bias on Syria
and wrote to the site several times to no avail. Coverage of Syria was consistently a fairy tale
of Assad the evil Hitler versus the good rebels–essentially a Washington Post view. This program
has declined. I'm sorry to say it. It is now so unreliable I can no longer watch it. I believe
the writer here is accurate and fair on this evaluation.
Gregory Kruse , January 2, 2017 at 11:02 am
That's what happens when a site has "Democracy" in its name. The term no longer has any coherent
meaning.
JohnMMorgan , January 2, 2017 at 12:28 pm
I agree, the role Democracy Now played in paving the way for the destruction of Libya and now
Syria is shameful. Given how divided the left is on Syria, the least DN could and should have
done is have weekly debates between top advocates of the different narratives to expose their
listeners to both sides. Instead they gave constant repetition of the official propaganda line
with only very rarely a little of the other side.
On U.S., Russia and Ukraine it has been more like DN has been MIA.
I think it is entirely appropriate for Rick Sterling to challenge DN in this excellent article.
Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 3:32 pm
There's a real love fest for Trump on this site and I believe you are all going to be bitterly
disappointed in the end.
I read Consortium News practically every day, but somehow I missed the "love fest" comments.
Can you share an example or two. There were several articles clearly exposing Hillary Clinton's
defects, but it would take lots of stretching of points to interpret them as pro-Trump. I and
others have made comments along the lines of "when it comes to Clinton and Trump there is no lesser
evil." I don't recall anyone challenging comments like that.
Similarly, I and others have made the point that we might escape Hillary Clinton's frying pan
but we will land in Donald Trump's fire. Or, another version, we might have dodged Hillary Clinton's
bullet but Donald Trump will be the price we will have to pay.
Putin obviously has something on Trump
In this bizarre era of world politics that may or may not be true. It is, however, unlikely
to be obvious either way to many visitors to this site. Can you share what causes you to believe
it is obvious?
Gregory Herr , January 1, 2017 at 4:08 pm
Severe drought and sanctions that go back to the Bush Administration certainly created some
economic hardships. But the conflict in Syria is hardly the outgrowth of a farmers' revolt. The
people of Syria are generally educated and politically astute. Naturally occurring political activity
not unlike what we sometimes see here in the States (with "movements" such as Occupy) did not
have an insurrectionist flavor and few Syrian citizens had armed revolt in mind. Many were simply
keen for Assad to step up the pace of the political reform he was a part of. The armed "revolt"
that you somehow think Assad handled badly was managed by foreign provocateurs. Assad and the
Syrian Arab Army and the Russian Air Force have been protecting the citizens of Syria from vile
terrorist mercenaries.
John P , January 1, 2017 at 6:54 pm
In support of some your comments Bill Cash, see – Putin's friendly response to the expulsion
of his US diplomats – shown on the British Independent newspaper site. In it they state: "The President-elect's nomination of Rex Tillerson, chief of ExxonMobil, as Secretary of State,
will if confirmed mean that Putin has someone whom he knows well, and has personally awarded the
Russian Order of Friendship, in charge of US foreign policy. As for his own business interests,
he signed an agreement last summer (just one, it should be said, of several attempts to do so)
to build a Trump Tower in Moscow."
Also interesting to read is Mondoweiss: "Why Obama waited 8 years to take on Netanyahu"
Happy New year everybody and lets hope we don't get Trumped --
I find this idea that better relationships between the US and Russia would be bad for Central
and Western Europe very strange. Of course, there are a few neocon hawks in Europe, as well, but
mostly, Europeans are very sceptical about strongly anti-Russian US policies in recent years (in
many European countries US power and influence is seen as a similar or bigger threat than Russia,
see
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/13/europeans-see-isis-climate-change-as-most-serious-threats/epw-russia-china-u-s-threats-web-version/
). US pressure was needed for the EU to pass sanctions against Russia (of course, Poland and
Angela Merkel were in favor, but since there is little popular support for these sanctions outside
Poland and the Baltic states, that would hardly have sufficed without US pressure). In Europe,
the simplified, dumbed-down presentations of conflicts like the one in Ukraine that are meant
to use such complex situations for a one-sided demonization of Russia are less widely accepted.
I think there are far more Europeans who saw the constant US pressure for worsening relationships
with Russia as a significant threat than people who think that a rapprochement of the US and Russia
would be dangerous. Of course, there are a few very vocal European journalists who belong to "Atlantic" neocon associations
who will scream when someone threatens to ease tensions with Russia, but they only represent a
very small part of Europeans.
Vera , January 1, 2017 at 1:08 pm
Now we will really get a "taste" of fake news
Zachary Smith , January 1, 2017 at 1:18 pm
As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives, the law authorizes
the Center to: "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing
expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources,
and implementing best practices ." (This section is an apparent reference to proposals
that Google, Facebook and other technology companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet
sites as purveyors of "Russian propaganda" or "fake news.")
I suspect "best practices" will include more than simply blocking the alternative information
sites like this and Naked Capitalism and the others on the BS PROPORNOT list. Expect other schemes
to be tried, each one with effectively unlimited funding.
They're going to do what the murderous twit George "dumbya" Bush spoke of:
"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for
the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
I and many others voted for Obama in 2008 because of our utter disgust with the Texas Torturer.
The master psychologists who selected Obama knew that would happen, and his fancy talking along
with his black skin caused some people I KNEW were racists to vote for him too – just to prove
to themselves they weren't. ( a task eased by the alternative of McCain and Palin)
Obama has his fingerprints all over the endless crap discussed in this splendid essay, and
the sooner people recognize he is a Bush-Level President the better.
My main complaint about the essay at the link is that at the end of it author Eric Zuesse was
still in a "defense" mode for the disaster which has been the Obama years.
doray , January 1, 2017 at 1:43 pm
The cartoon that should result from this action would be to show Obama and every member of
Congress who voted for this insanity taking a giant steaming dump on the First Amendment. We have
arrived at the Fourth Reich. Will they just block the alternative news, or criminalize those who try and post it?
:: wherefore does your sincerity lie? sincerity in heart is truth.
stan , January 1, 2017 at 2:16 pm
You can read chapter 6 of Mein Kampf to learn the power and techniques of war propaganda. I
started watching the propaganda in 1989 when George Bush Sr. invaded panama to capture his buddy
Noriega. There was a story about how the U.S. military had found womens panties and cocaine in
Noriegas hideout. After he was captured and reporters asked for proof of this, the U.S. military
said they could not find the underwear in question and the cocaine turned out to be baking soda.
Of course it was all fabrication.
During the leadup to the bombing of Iraq in 1991, the story was that the Iraqi soldiers had
gone in a hospital and thrown babies out of their incubators "onto the cold hard floor". Of course,
this was a total lie also. Even our president kept repeating it, so he was either stupid or lying.
Guess which.
But these are the stories to incite the murderous rage of a people, and prevent people from
questioning the attack. When you hear of the smear – someone hiding in a "spider-hole", or someone
caught trying to sneak away wearing women's clothing, then you know it is part of the smear campaign
and a total lie. It is just a smear, which psychologically makes you not protest the attack, because,
well, it could be true, and who wants to stand up in public to protect a sex pervert or a coward.
But the real power of propaganda is in controlling the narrative. Here is the true narrative
of our murderous rampage in the middle east.
The wars of the U.S. are the empires fighting over control of territory, with all of the benefits
and privileges thereof – take the resources, collect taxes, and control terms of commerce and
trade to benefit yourself. Big wars begin when empires fall. This also happens when an elephant
falls in the jungle. The lions, hyenas, vultures, etc. all try to grab a piece. Governments do
this too, as do crime syndicates and mobsters. Mobsters are always trying to muscle in on the
territory of other gangs, and police know that when a powerful mobster falls, there will be wars
between the gangs fighting for turf and control of territory and markets.
The U.S. began the destruction of Iraq with the murderous bombing of that country as soon as
the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. This attack was planned and prepared for during the Regan
military buildup of the 1980s. The U.S. knew the soviet union was going to fall, and they prepared
for it. It was decided to "pivot" from the U.S. military defeat in southeast asia to begin an
invasion of southwest asia. Zbigniew Brezinsky was the architect of the plan to destablize Afghanistan.
The U.S. military would not have done that without a follow up plan, and it takes years to plan
and prepare an armada for an invasion. In the time since, we have basically invaded and militarily
conquered the middle east, africa, southwestern asia and parts of the old soviet union in eastern
europe. It is a war between empires (very large business syndicates). All the day-to-day happenings
are trivial irrelavancies in terms of reasons for U.S. foreign policy and military actions. Our
future foreign policy to again invade asia was decided before 1980. Think of the president as
the CEO, and the board of directors tells him what to do. The board of directors has not changed.
backwardsevolution , January 1, 2017 at 5:46 pm
stan – very good post!
Dwight , January 1, 2017 at 9:32 pm
Amnesty International lent its name to the incubator baby propaganda, playing an important
role in helping Bush Sr. get Senate approval for the 1991 Gulf War. Amnesty International along
with Human Rights Watch also played an important role in legitimizing the 1999 Kosovo war by timely,
uncritical, and grossly irresponsible parroting of claims about killings at the village of Racak.
Fritz , January 1, 2017 at 11:17 pm
I hate to say: 'well said', generally, because it implies that I am in a position to give you
a grade, like a teacher would.
But here I must say "well said" to your post --
Lin Cleveland , January 1, 2017 at 2:19 pm
"the Ministry of Truth!" Yes indeed, Mr. Sterling, that's what we're seeing here. The stench
of hypocrisy wafting from the East is overwhelming, isn't it? To boot Obama signed this bit of
government overreach on my birthday claiming this legislation is to protect "national security
interests" and "to protect the American people from 'foreign propaganda' and disinformation."
Most U.S. citizens know that politicians tell whoppers on the campaign trail. Remember
in 2008 when heroic Hillary told about arriving in Bosnia "under a hail of bullets"? That never
happened!
No surprise she supports the bill. "Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's
imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our
democracy, and innocent lives." Let's understand what the lady means by "our democracy." She refers
to the democracy of the few, the political elites in cahoots with Wall Street who meet behind
a curtain to decide U.S. policy. Anyway, as long as we look to "leaders" we'll continue to live
in a hierarchy based in money and power–and that is not a democracy! Innocent lives? No,
this bill protects the guilty from public scrutiny.
The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among
the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free
claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence"
the U.S. election.
O yea! the irony is palpable. One section of the bill stipulates that information "experts"
appointed by the government will train prospective journalists. Gee, you mean we don't already
have that with ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC? The term "The Fourth Estate" for a free and open press dates
back to Edmond Burke in 1875. Of course all along those in power have worked overtime to propagate
our own citizens, but the idea of government-trained journalists is a slap in the face to "freedom
of the press." All of us who post our fact-based opinions qualify as press. From now on, however,
a journalist must have a stamp of approval from the government!
On another not-so "fake news" site I found an article by a retired professor well versed in
computer language. Dr. Spring challenges the Russian hacking story, but I don't know enough to
understand it all Some of you might.
Kent – re competing pipelines. I used to think that was the main reason for the war in Syria.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote an article entitled "Syria: Another Pipeline War". I'm sure the pipeline
from Qatar up through Syria is part of the reason, but another poster commented that he didn't
buy this, mainly because the pipeline could have gone up through Iraq and then across Turkey.
I looked at a map and, yes, he was correct. It would cost more money, but could easily have been
done. No, he contended that there was a much greater reason for the war: Israel.
Joe Tedesky , January 1, 2017 at 10:50 pm
I'm leaving you something to read see link below, where the author talks about an energy alliance
between Turkey, Israel, and Russia is being discussed between these three countries. The U.S.
is not included in these discussions.
Personally I have thought for quite awhile now that this Middle East American NATO driven war
has been more about destabilizing Israel's neighbors (Yinon Plan, Clean Break), as opposed to
routing energy pipelines.
Excellent info there,Joe. Demonstrating once again that Putin is a far better, more creative,
and less deluded strategic thinker than our best and brightest. I suspect that Turkey's turn toward
a Russian alliance on the energy front is sparked the CIA's (failed) Gulenist coup attempt last
summer.
And of course Israel is always Israel.
The recent bizarre assassination of the Russian ambassador in Turkey by the 'security' guy
yelling 'this is for Aleppo' was also a tell regarding the US's support, arming, and funding of
the proxy mercenaries Daesh/Isis/al Nusra/al Quaeda.
Losing's a bitch, especially when it requires treason and you STILL lose. The Masters of the
Universe take a hit and I actually see a small glimmer of hope in that.
Joe Tedesky , January 2, 2017 at 12:41 pm
Yes the deception and intrigue makes one get dizzy trying to figure out who is really behind
all of it. The U.S. needs a new strategy, but it fails to acknowledge it, and with that nothing
will change for the good.
Kent , January 2, 2017 at 10:51 am
BWE- True enough about the alternate route, through the new and improved 'Kurdistan' but that
would have still left the Syrian/Russian legal alliance in place as a competitor for EU business.
I also think that since Syria was 'on the list' from the get/go, our 'thinkers' in the MI$S
complex Mafia weren't creative enough to pivot and adapt. Plus, it would have still left competition
noted above.
CitizenOne , January 1, 2017 at 2:39 pm
I was watching the news. It is all about the Russians. The Expulsions, the sanctions, the democrats
and the republicans are united against their common enemy the Russians. More sanctions are on
the way. If a family member recently passed away you can be assured the Russians murdered them!
Why don't they just declare war with Russia and get all the niceties over and done so we can get
right down to the war?
Nowhere in this uni-polar single topic narrative of how Russia and Russia alone rigged the
election is there a mention of any possible other source of influence on the election. What about
the glacially paced multi year investigation into Benghazi? What about Comey's October Surprise
with Anthony Wiener's Laptop? What about any other foreign power? What about voter ID laws? What
about gerrymandering? What about black box voting? What about Citizens United vs. FEC and McCutcheon
vs. FEC and dark money in politics?
These are just some of the things that have dominated all the previous narratives before now
on how elections might be rigged minus the foreign hacks by the Russians which was never a concern.
Now, all those things are forgotten. Never happened, not a problem. All washed away in an instant
with an entirely new theory out of a clear blue sky. The one single question posed by the politicians
and the media might just as well be why are we not loading weapons on boats and planes, dropping
them off all along Russia's borders and reinstating the draft right now?
There is a word for this. This is Propaganda. The law is a perversion of its alleged purpose
of defense of the truth by claiming it will weed out lies. It actually seeks to preserve complete
control of the narrative a.k.a., propaganda by shutting out anyone else with a different opinion.
They need to go after foreign sources because obviously, there is no need for worry or concern
that our domestic media might actually do its job. It is clearly already deep inside the belly
of the beast.
Mr. Obama has 20 days left and they cannot possibly go by fast enough as he salts the political
landscape in order to tie the incoming administrations hands.
This has to be one of the scariest and damnable things Obama signed into law. Hopefully, it
will shortly be rescinded but it seems even the republicans like Mitch McConnell are all on board
with preserving the military industrial complex at all costs. War is their stock and trade and
there are trillions of dollars at stake here. The Defense Industry needs enemies not friends.
What we are seeing is the Neo-Con Cabal wringing their hands with anxiety that the next war
with Russia might be on hold and doing everything they can to make that happen. This is what Eisenhower
warned us about. But it is an old problem.
Here are some quotes:
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for
the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era
of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to
prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated
in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety
of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.
Abraham Lincoln – In a letter written to William Elkin less than five months before he was
assassinated.
The money power preys on the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of
adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than
bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon
its crimes.
Abraham Lincoln
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated.
The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to
be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in
the world – no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote
of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men .
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of
the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody,
are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so
watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their
breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
Woodrow Wilson – In The New Freedom (1913)
The fact is that there is a serious danger of this country becoming a pluto-democracy; that
is, a sham republic with the real government in the hands of a small clique of enormously wealth
men, who speak through their money, and whose influence, even today, radiates to every corner
of the United States.
William McAdoo – President Wilson's national campaign vice-chairman, wrote in Crowded Years
(1974)
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create
for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that
glorifies it.
Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms
The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a
world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each
country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist
fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in
frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International
Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central
banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank sought to dominate its government
by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level
of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic
rewards in the business world.
Prof. Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope
In a small Swiss city sits an international organization so obscure and secretive .Control
of the institution, the Bank for International Settlements, lies with some of the world's most
powerful and least visible men: the heads of 32 central banks, officials able to shift billions
of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen.
Keith Bradsher of the New York Times, August 5, 1995
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is eager to enter into close relationship with the Bank
for International Settlements .The conclusion is impossible to escape that the State and Treasury
Departments are willing to pool the banking system of Europe and America, setting up a world financial
power independent of and above the Government of the United States .The United States under present
conditions will be transformed from the most active of manufacturing nations into a consuming
and importing nation with a balance of trade against it.
Rep. Louis McFadden – Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency quoted in the
New York Times (June 1930)
backwardsevolution , January 1, 2017 at 9:53 pm
CitizenOne – great post!
D5-5 , January 1, 2017 at 3:18 pm
Thank you for this excellent analysis. Particularly disturbing to me is the success of the
propaganda in places I wouldn't expect it, as with Democracy Now, and my neighbors, who seem decent,
intelligent people, but entirely done in by the false impressions. I have the feeling the critical
views expressed here and in this excellent Consortium site, plus similar sites, represent a small
minority of the American public? Or is an awakening in progress causing this newest repressive
move, a growing skepticism threatening "national security"? I did read a comment somewhere that
fifty percent of the American public is not taken in by the current Russia blaming, but I don't
know if this is true.
junius , January 2, 2017 at 12:38 pm
How about Rolling Stone's October article praising Hillary Clinton as a champion of feminism?
I just cancelled my subscription to the New Yorker because the quality of its great cartoons no
longer outweighs the ugly rightward shift in its editorial policy.
We seem to be witnessing the completion of the project begun a century ago this year, in 1917,
with the establishment of the Committee on Public Information. Also known as the Creel Commission,
it was the government agency tasked with convincing the American people that it was a good idea
to support one faction in Europe's Great War and to take arms against the other. As laughably
naive as that propaganda effort seems now, it was the beginning of the end of independent journalism,
which in truth had always been on shaky ground in this country. The Founders were among the most
cynical of men. It's not hard to picture them laughing in their sleeves over the farcical First
Amendment for well they knew from colonial experience that the "freedom" to publish belongs only
to those who can afford the price of a printing press, ink, and paper, and who, most importantly,
curry favor from government and business. It remains to be seen what effect the internet will
have – and how easily it can be silenced
Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 3:20 pm
I'm well aware of the propaganda from our government but if you believe it will be better under
Trump, you are living in a fairy tale. As Bernie said, he's a pathological liar.
Whatever benefits
Trump determines what he will say. Look under the covers and you find Steve Bannon who runs the
trump campaign. If you think the propaganda is bad now, wait until he's in control.
Trump isn't the answer and we need his tax returns. I can see him creating an alliance with Putin
and undermining Western Europe.
Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 3:49 pm
I'm well aware of the propaganda from our government but if you believe it will be better
under Trump, you are living in a fairy tale.
Bill Cash: I'm with you on this point, but your reasoning above in other posts was very sloppy
making facts out of speculation. Speculation, even if it is plausible, does not qualify as fact.
I also agree with other commentators suggesting Trump will probably make Obama look good despite
negative opinions of Obama.
Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 4:23 pm
How would creating an alliance with Putin undermine western Europe? You are right that I don't
know much about you, but I am with Bill Bodden that you are guilty of shoddy reasoning. As for
Global warming, I am sure that it is a serious problem. But Hillary's foreign policy would have
had me concerned about nuclear winter. And Hillary is a pathological liar who thinks only of herself
and talks out both sides of her mouth. And she is a slave to the deep state and wall street. I
think you are dead right about Trump's character, but I think you may be underestimating much
of the horrors of the Clintons. How about foreign alliances via the Clinton Foundation- it's pay
to play scenario, and the possible impacts on foreign policy? Look at the utter mayhem in the
Middle East and the refugee crisis in Europe. Hillary would have promised us more of the same
as president.
I was a Bernie supporter as well, but he lost me when he gave up the fight.
Jessejean , January 2, 2017 at 1:20 am
Skip–Bernie didn't give up the fight. He did what he had promised to do and supported the nominee.
In other words, he kept his word, even tho it clearly cost him. You abandoned him when the fight
became tough, when it wasn't so glamorous, when it shifted over to the hard slog of grassroots
organizing and door to door work for some school board member–you know, the kind of work Stokley
Charmicheal did for years to help build the Panthers. Don't blame Bernie for your lacking of true
heart. It's you.
Skip Scott , January 2, 2017 at 9:00 am
When Bernie discovered proof thru wikileaks that the DNC was actively working against him,
he should have fought for the nomination at the convention, instead of caving to all the corruption
(super delegates, etc etc.) If he had failed there, he could have topped the green party ticket
with Jill Stein to run as VP. Then he would have succeeded in blowing up the entirely corrupt
two party system, if nothing else. He would have had the 15% to make the national debates. He
may have even won. Where was the slog of grassroots organizing after he quit the fight? It's come
to naught. I had the true heart to stay with him if he hadn't caved. Bernie even supported some
faux democrats against genuine progressive greens in down ballot races. This is not a game, it's real life. It is time for people
to stand strong for the issues they care about.
Brad Owen , January 2, 2017 at 10:44 am
I agree Skip. Bernie was the man of the hour. He had the perfect tool to smash the two-party/Wall
Street/deep state Establishment: millions of independent citizen donors. Then he threw it all
away to actively campaign for the queen of chaos and the Establishment War Party. I was so disgusted
and mad that I went Green and never looked back. I now donate 10$ a month, every month, to the
Greens hoping to see recreated the Tool that Bernie threw away (and still trying to lasso to the
D-side of the Establishment War Party): millions of independent citizens donating 10$ or 20$ a
month to the Green Party to build up a war chest to challenge both wings of the Establishment
War Party.
Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 6:59 pm
Certainly Trump should not be trusted, among the two very bad (in my view) candidates, I considered
Trump the greated evil for domestic US policy, but probably the lesser evil in foreign policy
compared to Hillary Clinton's more aggressive neocon policies.
I think the demonization of Russia and the presentation of the Russian government as a big
threat also has to do with the goal of keeping a strong US influence in Western Europe – and for
supporting the influence of US-linked European interest groups. But I doubt that this is going
to work. It might work on the US public, but apart from Poland and the Baltic states, demonizing
Russia is much more difficult in Europe, and the percentage of people who know more about the
conflicts in which Russia is involved than the simplified depictions that are popular in the US
is probably much bigger.
You do realise who owns that news paper you are quoting. It's owned by the Ledbedev family who are oligarchs in the fine tradition. Stole money ran
to the west claiming persecution by Putin. It's an anti Putin paper. They are purely online now as the print version of the paper ceased
to make a profit.
The only writers worth reading are Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn
Kalen , January 1, 2017 at 3:23 pm
Just a note for DN lovers. Since before 2008 the Pacifica Fundation running DN was taken over by Goldman Sachs. Many local stations rebelled and were cut off from money, forcing them into turmoil and like
KPFA and KPFK throwed the management off, cut the fat and went fully listener funded. All that while GS bought Amy Goodman a new TV studio with audience who after the show for $2000
had a chance to go to dinner with Amy.
All in the midst of 2008 ensuing collapse. When DN subsequently ignored Puerto Rico general strike and a quarter million street demonstration. I stopped watching and listening DN on radio after 15 years.
The Police State requires each person to believe their lies. Paraphrasing a comment attributed
to a former CIA operative: "When the only narrative available is ours, we will have done our job".
The problem for the Police State is even if there is only one person left to speak truth to their
lies. that truth will need to be snuffed out. It will take a lot more than $160,000,000.
Tristan , January 1, 2017 at 3:27 pm
This article does well to point out the impending doom of our intellectual discourse regarding
the nature of the U.S. gov't and its relationship with the citizenry. Already the citizens of
the U.S. are more commonly referred to as consumers, thus it follows that the more equal of the
equal should control what the consumers are fed.
The dystopian nature of free market globalized capitalism is now finding, or is near to, the
apex of what capitalism unfettered can accomplish. Resulting in the frantic "marketing" that this
form of capitalism relies on to "sell" itself as the only way to survive this ugly planet. War
is the product, propaganda is the marketing, we fools, consumers, are forced to buy the product
from afar and those who receive the product pay a price that no human ought to bear.
Since we must recognize the complete corruption of such a condition, those that wish to continue
to profit from this are forced to act in ways which protect this profit. If this includes an Orwellian
Ministry of Truth, as the CFPDA intends, then that's the remedy that is needed because profit,
you know, money, power, ad nauseum. That's it. If there were some greater underpinning to the
destruction of whole societies and nations and regions that made some sense in the fabric of improving
the well being of the planet's humans, perhaps we could accede to the years of long sacrifice
and struggle. But no, this is only about wealth and the accumulation of power that this now provides
in our modern world.
The narratives which counter the prevailing religion in the West, the religion of Capitalism
unfettered and rapacious, are not given voice. Many don't even understand that there a different
ways of organizing a society or a nation that serves the need and well being of its citizens.
This bullshit machine being funded by "our own" government is ensuring just that, that people
are not even provided an opportunity to discuss an alternative to the present state of things.
Try not to buy the products that this machine produces, as even if we dream of something else,
this too is contrary to the designs of the machine. Next is the Ministry of Thought, or perhaps
it was first. And the Ministry of Truth is just now only the second to appear manifest.
Brian , January 1, 2017 at 3:46 pm
Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)
It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream
media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year
2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video
Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of
the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.
John McCain has long been recognized as a warmonger eager to attack foreign nations. Many Americans
will be surprised to learn he is now waging war on the American people. Many other Americans won't
have a clue of what this bill means – or even of its existence.
Liam , January 1, 2017 at 4:03 pm
Regarding all the major propaganda narrative relating to the Syrian War, I put together a massive
compendium of photos, videos and linked evidence related to the White Helmets and other ruses.
Links here:
Extensive links to important JPR posts exposing the White Helmet terrorists .
Please bookmark and save this large amount of info related to the US/UK backed White Helmets
as it is extensive proof that the officials of the aforementioned countries are supporting a fake
group that is directly linked to terrorism. The White Helmets killed the real Syrian Civil Defense
in east Aleppo, Syria in 2013. The videos and research throughout these posts, which is primarily
conducted by UK investigative reporting outfit 21st Century Wire and Venessa Beeley, exposes one
of the greatest war lies over told, a massive propaganda effort meant to deceive and coerce the
populations of western countries into believing that al-Qaeda linked terrorists are civil humanitarians
that save little children.
So we have our own Pravda now. Way to go obama. I voted for him twice and this is how he leaves
us? Not the ending I envisaged.
Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 5:21 pm
I voted for Obama twice as well. I believe in both those cases, he was the lesser of two evils.
McCain knows of no problem that sufficient bombing can't fix, and Romney thought the entire American
public should become vulture capitalists like himself. Who knows what kind of pressure Obama was
under from the deep state. They may well have taken him to the woodshed and told him what he needed
to do if he loved living, and loved his wife and daughters.
Joe Tedesky , January 2, 2017 at 2:34 am
Michael, Skip, don't beat yourself so up to bad, it wasn't as though our choices of candidates
are ever that good. I blame that on a money driven media system, and a public controlled by a
constant narravative void of any critical thinking. This past years election was nothing but immature
on zingers and never about having an intelligent debate. So, don't be to hard on yourself, you
and I never stood a chance with what we had, or rather didn't have to work with. Our candidate
never runs nor do they win. Have a great New Years, I mean that.
F. G. Sanford , January 1, 2017 at 5:10 pm
"Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill:
"It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect
our democracy, and innocent lives.""
"Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among
Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best
practices."
" the U.S. government's new "Global Engagement Center" will seek to ensure that the censorship
is even more complete with its goal to "counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation.""
So Hillary supports the bill, but people still think she's a progressive, let alone a Democrat?
This should solidify the concept that both parties are beholden to a deeper agenda which has decidedly
fascist overtones. When they implement those "best practices", I wonder where book-burning and
smashing printing presses will shake out in that "wide range of techniques". I can already imagine
where they'll go to get that "external expertise". Probably the same place where they're currently
getting "expert training" for our police forces.
These developments contain hallmarks of an empire in decline, clutching at any figment of its
imagination to control the narrative and retain its legitimacy. But on the bright side, I'm curious
to know how far $160 million could really go to prop up failing entities like the NYT, WaPo, CNN
and MSNBC. Wolf Blitzer, Christianne Amanpour, Jill Dogherty, Rachel Maddow, Jake Tapper, Michael
Smerconish, Anderson Cooper, Fareed Zakaria, Ben Wedeman, John King, Gloria Borger and Dana Bash
are just a few of the faces that can make me instantly change the channel. I used to think Phyllis
Bennis, Amy Goodman and Paul Jay were on the level, but they too frequently pull their punches
when the truth REALLY needs to be told. Fox news is just totally hopeless. Most of these people
are shameless liars, and I don't think I'm the only person who notices. They have "phony" written
all over their faces. In the end, free market economics may go a long way to hamper any benefit
a mere $160 million transfusion can pump into the dying corpse of mainstream media. And, if they
try to shut down Black Agenda Report, I wonder whose side the ACLU will pick? Lots of Ph.D theses
and Supreme Court cases are on the horizon from this one! It's still pretty hard to sell a horse
with a wooden leg even with skillful marketing.
In the meantime though, the U.S. Government's "Goebbels Engagement Center" is definitely a
scary thought. Giddayup, Nellybell, here comes the lynch mob!
Regina Schulte , January 1, 2017 at 5:18 pm
The enormity of our government's hypocrisy in all of this defies a sane person's ability to
comprehend the current stance we are now placing before the rest of the world. The long list of
our spying, regime changes, executions, unwarranted secret operations, destruction of national
economies, and the myriad of ongoing other secrecies is a measure of our hubris in thinking that
the rest of the world is our oyster. Despite all of our own sins, we dare to accuse other leaders
of invading our empirical rights!!!
Josh Stern , January 1, 2017 at 5:34 pm
It would be very interesting to learn more about some of the main mechanisms through which
current day US propaganda is scheduled to lead, with nothing bleeding – or even interesting –
at mainstream media outlets. Are those decisions coming from the executive editors or from the
media owners? I'm not going to hold my breath for the media to report on itself in that capacity,
but perhaps some investigative journalists on those staffs will put their anonymously sourced
mouths where their sourced mouths usually go and act as informants to allow independent reporters
to get the scoop on how this works. Who at NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc. decided to make no true evidence,
probably a false story, missing the big picture, no-harm Russian hacking a main story almost every
day, giving support fir bloviating idiots in US Congress to declare that Russia must be punished
for the things they have previously declared "every nation does".
Gary Hare , January 1, 2017 at 5:45 pm
It is quite possible that MSM is sometimes accurate in its reporting, and objective in its
analysis. But it has been shown too often to be purveyors of pure propaganda, ignorant of facts
that counter such propaganda and cheerleaders for US/NATO aggression, that it has lost all credibility,
and so we must question virtually everything it says regarding world affairs. The actions of lawmakers
regarding "fake news", and the Obama, Clinton, DMC "we woz robbed" by Putin storyline, is kindergarden
stuff, farcical and petulant, and should be treated as such by objective journalists. Will Trump be any better? I believe there is reason to expect he and his administration to be
even worse, but I wait in hope that I am wrong. The world's only "superpower" has become the world's
leading laughing stock. Are there any grown-ups in US/NATO politics?
F. G. Sanford , January 1, 2017 at 6:23 pm
I just gotta say something about that "love fest for Trump" comment. Here's how I see it. Trump
says stuff, and it may not be true. But he really believes it. Hillary tells lies, but she knows
she's lying. She tells them anyway, and insists they're true. I don't have anything but hope.
Deep down, I'm relatively optimistic. Hillary's lies could start WWIII. Trump's blustering probably
wont. If there's even a shred of a chance he'll listen to reason, he has the coglioni to make
some needed changes. Hillary was the puppet. Trump, admittedly, is a bull in a china shop, but
with him, I think we still have a future. And, it could be a very bright one if he plays his cards
right. It's that simple.
Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 6:31 pm
The War Against Alternative Information
In a war there are two sides – the aggressors and their targets.
There are two sides to the targets – those who surrender and collaborate and those who resist
to defend their homeland.
Pick a side.
W Hajicek , January 1, 2017 at 6:43 pm
Seriously? Defending Mideast dictatorships because things were orderly?
I am dismayed at the prospect of more propaganda coming from the government. However, a more
pertinent and enlightening critique of this development would be to inform readers of the history
of our government's use of propaganda, and how this new funding, etc., impacts what the government
is already doing. That is wholly missing from this article. Instead there is an inexplicable defense
of authoritarian regimes, in particular going on for paragraph after paragraph about Syria.
And what was your point? Are you actually just debating recent U.S. focus on regime change,
a la Bush? I don't agree with that, but I wouldn't defend Assad or Putin, nor dismiss their use
of propaganda.
Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Who claims that everything was alright in the dictatorships like Iraq and Libya? It is just
very likely that there would have been much less violence and suffering if these governments had
not been toppled by force. Claiming that there were allegedly good intentions certainly does not
justify the suffering and violence that was caused by these interventions.
Likewise, of course, those who arm and finance jihadist militias in Syria can claim that their
goal is improving the human rights situation. But is there any credibility of the claim that human
rights will improve when the Syrian government is toppled and Islamist extremist groups like the
Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda), Al Zenki and Ashrar Al Sham take power in the parts of Syria that are
not already under the control of Daesh? Or should we believe some fairytales like that, after
taking power in Syria, Wahhabi militias would step aside and hand over power to some liberal pro-democratic
intellectual who had been in exile? The point is that it is certainly not good enough to point
out human rights violations of the Assad government to justify policies that would, if they were
successful, probably bring to power forces that have even less respect for human rights.
Furthermore, if the fact that the government of a country can be called a dictatorship should
be a sufficient reason for overthrowing it (whichever forces come to power afterwards), what should
be the criteria? After all, dictatorships are not really rare in many parts of the world, especially
the Middle East. Why has the US turned on one secular dictatorship after the other, but never
attacked theocratic Sunni regimes like Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that have an abysmal
human rights record? Obviously, the criteria are not based on whether a government is an autocracy
or how much it violates human rights, but something else (probably some geostrategic interests).
I think the main points of criticism of the idea that the fact that a government is autocratic
gives an outside country like the US the right to topple it are:
1. "Humanitarian" justifications of interventions are worthless when they are likely to lead
to more violence and suffering than if the intervention had not been made.
2. Toppling a dictator in a country without a long democratic tradition is not likely to lead
to a functioning democracy afterwards. In Western countries, democracy has also taken a long time
to develop, it can hardly be brought about by some bombs. In many cases, toppling a dictator either
leads to long-term armed fights between competing groups and/or a new dictatorship sooner or
later.
3. When we look at autocracies that were toppled and others that were not toppled by the US,
it is hardly plausible that the criterion was how autocratic the government was, how much it violated
human rights or how low the standard of living was. Since the "humanitarian" arguments are not
the real criteria for the decision about which autocracy should be attacked (otherwise, it would
be hard to explain why, for instance, Saudi Arabia has not been attacked), it would make more
sense to discuss the real reasons for the attacks, whatever they are, than the justifications
that are brought forward when the decision to topple a country has been taken.
4. If the idea of the illegality of wars of aggression in international law (except extraordinary
circumstances authorized by the UN Security Council) is given up, this could lead to dangerous
wars in many regions. Which countries should have the right to attack countries that are determined
to be autocracies by the attacker? Would the US tolerate it if India or Russia decided to topple
pro-Western autocracies that violate himan rights (e.g. Saudi Arabia)?
Sam F , January 1, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Yes, the same US propaganda reasoning applied to the US oligarchy, which is a set of autocrats,
would require that the US use subversion and military force to remove the Republicans, Democrats,
warmongers, AIPAC, imperialist financiers etc..
Starting with drone attacks on mass media, party
operatives, bank HQ etc. Then some "shock and awe" and an invasion to subdue its military forces,
greeted by the people of the US dancing in the streets. Then denial of employment to all who worked
for the US regime, followed by founding a true democracy where money does not buy mass media or
elections.
Something tells me that the dark state will not reach that conclusion. So I guess that democracy
was never the objective of regime change by the US.
Judging by your name, you have Czech origin. Why are you supporting democracy all over the
world from the U.S.? Shouldn' t you be saving the Czech Reublic from bad Zeman? There's no communism
there anymore
Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 10:56 pm
One of the problems with regime change whether practices by an outside agency such as the United
States and Iraq, Libya, etc. or through an internal revolution is the risk of the cure being worse
than the disease.
Oleg , January 1, 2017 at 8:23 pm
It is funny and indeed troubling that the US is busy copycatting the practices of the recent
foe that went down exactly because these practices were grossly inefficient. I of course mean
the Cold War 1.0 and the former Soviet Union. I remember listening to Voice of America in my youth
in search for truth. I never imagined that only a few years later during my lifetime Americans
will be looking for truth in Russian news outlets and the US will create "the Global Engagement
Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation." In fact,
resorting to such practices is a huge sign of weakness and decline. It is a pity really that the
US are getting that weak that fast. I am not really pro-American but I still remember things that
America used to champion around the world (yes, the Freedom of Speech too!), and we all still
need these things as much as ever. Too bad they are under threat in the US themselves now. Hopefully
Trump will indeed be able to make America great again and stop all this nonsense.
What is most sad is that many American rally for this "the Global Engagement Center". See Bill
Cash here. I see it the same way you do, sinc eI was also born in the USSR.
Joe Tedesky , January 1, 2017 at 10:33 pm
Oleg read this link I'm providing, and see if you feel as does the Russian who wrote this magnificent
article .
these are just semi clever diversions leading the average away from the Prime Agenda ..Lol ..ask
Merkel she knows
Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 8:46 pm
What I find scary is how much the dominance of the propaganda discourse has increased. Before
the Iraq war, there was widespread dissent, and in most of Europe, support for the war was a minority
position. But in the case of Libya and, even more Syria, dissent is tolerated less and almost
all media strictly follow the official propaganda line. I find this even more striking because,
after all, this is a position that should be rather hard to sell to the public. One should think
that it should not be so easy to spread the idea that mostly jihadist militias that were (and
mostly still are) allied with Al Qaeda are the good guys that should be supported with money and
arms. That even such a difficult position could reach such a dominant position in the Western
media discourse shows how effective the propaganda is. I am beginning to think that if the line
that Sweden is the biggest threat to world peace was spread, people would sign petitions on change.org
for finally occupying Sweden, and there would be talking points about the inaction of the US president
because Sweden still has not been occupied by US troops although everyone recognizes that it is
an enormous threat to humanity. I am probably exaggerating a bit, but if the relevant interest
groups are successful in making many people believe that anyone who does not support jihadist
allies of Al Qaeda who behead "traitors" and bombing anti-air defences all over the country is
heartless towards Syrians, there are probably many other things that seem absurd and extreme now
that could be promoted in a way that soon anyone who does not agree with it is depicted as a bad
person.
I find the role of Snopes particularly worrying. Of course, I cannot judge whether everything
Eva Bartlett says is true. But her reports are detailed and connected to evidence, while the Snopes
texts that dismiss her are written in a sloppy and superficial way. This would not be a problem
if Snopes was just one more website where a point of view is expressed (accidentally or not so
accidentally one that is very close to the position of the US government). But since it is planned
that Snopes should be one of the arbiters with a higher authority that should decide what is true
and what is not, this is worrysome. It is not too hard to predict that Snopes would hardly ever
flag articles from the Washington Post or the New York Times that are close to the US government
as "disputed" even if they are speculative and based on flimsy evidence, but other texts contradicting
them will probably regularly be flagged as "disputed". The only question is whether this will
be effective or if people will just ignore the "disputed" flags if they are biased in a way that
is too obvious (which also means that the flags would be ineffective against real fake news) and,
if Facebook starts hiding such "disputed" stories, just move over to other networks.
Oleg , January 1, 2017 at 9:24 pm
Regarding Sweden and propaganda: Wag the Dog. 1997 movie. All said then. Sadly, still more
true than ever.
Stefan , January 1, 2017 at 8:54 pm
Democracy Later is more dangerous than the other big propaganda organs.
While the latter ones require very little scrutiny by the observant to recognize as the warmongers
that they are
the former (democracy now[sic] ) tries to lure the the careful reader and critic into its
well crafted trap of deception – to gather your trust where it matters the least, and couches
it's warmongering where it matters the most, most recently in regards to Syria.
Kent , January 2, 2017 at 11:33 am
Stefan,
'Democracy Later' I like that.
Look at DN's funding structure it's not hard to figure out.
Kent – The link to a supposed 'flow chart' looks suspicious, since there's no links/attributions
to sources, and the 'newsofinteterest' website (apparently inactive for ~5 yrs?) didn't appear
to be particularly credible in my experience (ie; links to 911 truthers, Laetrile cancer proponents,
etc). And to regard Noam Chomsky's political views as somehow significantly influenced by corporate
money/government coercion (as the diagram does at the bottom) is laughable - the guy has been
a strong, vocal, prolific critic of US imperialism, condemning it since the c1960.
Decades ago
he stopped paying a portion of his taxes as a protest against military spending, and subsequently
has had his wages garnished by the government. While I don't necessarily agree with all of Chomsky's
prescriptions of what to do (e.g.; his judgement that it was best to vote for HC), his descriptions
of what HAS happened have been accurate, nuanced, and documented.
David F., N.A. , January 1, 2017 at 10:49 pm
This says it all:
But the U.S. government's near total control of the message doesn't appear to be enough.
Apparently even a few voices of dissent are a few voices too many.
The illusions of "freedom" hates us for our First Amendment. Isn't this the true premise behind
our bought-and-paid-for government's multinational oligarchs' enactment of all
these new Patriot Acts (NDAAs and other laws)?
For over a year and a half prior to the election several liberal websites started mimicking
the msm with their Trump bashing. To me, all these bashings were backhanded endorsements for Clinton.
I swear, most, if not all, of the liberal topics, talking points and phrases were exactly identical
to the msm's. As apparent as it was this election, this showed that the bluedogs in-charge had
been influencing the liberals for quite some time. This is probably why the duopoly issue wasn't
strongly addressed back when Nader spoiled Gore's chances in 2000 (hold on, hold on, I have a
legitimate excuse: a foundation paid me to say that).
Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 11:12 pm
Obama did promise hope and change, but it is highly unlikely anyone outside the neocon and
proto-fascist cabals hoped for this change setting up a Ministry of Truth. What a legacy!!!
What a great essay. Thank you to the writer. So many links to explore. I agree wholeheartedly
in the analysis. I wrote a very simple essay for my own website which comes to the same conclusions.
I include a list of headlines from main stream media regarding the "Russian hacking" and then
the headlines from independent media. It was quite stark. Someone is lying.
I agree Elizabeth we do need Independent Media. I wish our news was more International Independent,
and I think that maybe coming. I see people posting comments on this site from International Countries,
so it's already happening. I read some foreign sites myself, but I hope that if allowed to continue
that this average person may be able to interact with other peoples of the world, and make some
sense of all of this. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but a person can dream can't they?
This 2017 New Years Americans are permitted to blame Vladimir Putin for they're getting obnoxiously
drunk while bringing in the New Year with a couple a bottles of Stolichnaya .this maybe void in
Vermont, considering.
This Russian hacking scare is scaring some Americans for real, and that ain't good, because
with the hysteria comes the loss of more freedoms. Each episode of terror or security related
troubled matters comes America's way, means the end of a Right. Our grandchildren of this new
century will assume there always was a Homeland Security, because it's always been there as long
as they can remember. The most pathetic part of all of this is that it all began to be set in
motion over Hillary's loss. I'll end it here, but your essay was spot on and intelligent on top
of that.
Brian , January 2, 2017 at 9:37 am
"Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!" Nathan Meyer Rothschild
June 13, 2016 Which Corporations Control The World?
A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many
of the brands below do you use?
I just ran into a little essay which suggests to me that The War Against Alternative Information
is actually one of many campaigns in a much larger conflict. Regarding the link, the author
is somebody I've never heard of, and I hope and pray he doesn't turn out to be a neo-nazi or some
similar kind of nut.
Trump sensing Obama's resort to violent retaliation against Russia, and the likelihood he
would turn the gun to 'Putin's accomplice', the President-elect decided to take precautionary
measures, he replaced Obama's secret service by his private security guards.
... ... ... There is little doubt that the murder of the Russian Ambassador will be the beginning of a
cycle of violent assassinations. It is certain that Putin and Trump will take the appropriate
defensive measures.
I don't follow Roman Catholic affairs, but last I heard the current Pope hadn't moved into
the Vatican. It's my opinion that's the only reason the man is still alive. Still an opinion,
but his hyper-caution is something other people ought to imitate.
Jan 1, 2017 2017: TRUTH RISING - Melissa & Aaron Dykes
Aaron and Melissa Dykes are truth researchers, truth journalists and truth filmmakers. Their
excellent website Truthstreammedia com and You Tube channel by the same name are two must visit
destination for anyone who wants to be informed about the REAL issues we face. Truthstreammedia
is the antithesis to the "fake news" you'll get from CNN and mainstream media outlets.
I believe the war criminals past and present are terrified that the sleeping masses might finally
wake up. Therefore, they are attempting to shut down alternative voices, and continuing their
propaganda via their corporate hand maidens.
"There is overwhelming evidence that wars on a number of countries were planned. Yet, this evidence
is censored and covered up by many of the so-called "searchers for truth," in the "investigative
media." The TV "news" parrots propaganda daily and the "newspapers" do likewise "
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/12/the-propaganda-peddlers-war-criminals.html
"... George Soros saw America in terms of its centers of economic and political power. He didn't care about the vast stretches of small towns and villages, of the more modest cities that he might fly over in his jet but never visit, and the people who lived in them. Like so many globalists who believe that borders shouldn't exist because the luxury hotels and airports they pass through are interchangeable, the parts of America that mattered to him were in the glittering left-wing bubble inhabited by his fellow elitists. ..."
"... Trump's victory, like Brexit, came because the neoliberals had left the white working class behind. Its vision of the future as glamorous multicultural city states was overturned in a single night. The idea that Soros had committed so much power and wealth to was of a struggle between populist nationalists and responsible internationalists. But, in a great irony, Bush was hardly the nationalist that Soros believed. Instead Soros spent a great deal of time and wealth to unintentionally elect a populist nationalist. ..."
"... Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered, and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with it. ..."
"... They sold their souls for campaign dollars and look what it got them. lmfao. ..."
"... I wouldn't give Soros that much credit. Sure, he helped, but face it, mainstream corporate media is now the Ministry of Truth. And both the Democrat and Republican elites have been working overtime in the last 16 years to dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights. ..."
"... The Deplorables at least understand they have been betrayed by BOTH parties. ..."
"... I'm guessing that even without the billionaire polarizing meddler Soros, the limousine liberal group, made up of the crooked Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Washerwoman-Schitz, Chuck 'the fuck' Schumer and the Obamas, was more than enough to sink a very divided, primary election-rigged Democrat Party ..."
"... Neoliberal lobbyists have successfully co-opted the policies & talking points of the center-left over the last two decades, and in so doing, poisoned progressive politics with a deep affinity for Wall Street, financialization, and free trade. Under neoliberalism, equality for all took a back seat to representational diversity within Western popular culture, redistribution was repurposed to include corporate welfare programs & taxpayer funded bail-outs for banks, and tolerance became increasingly subdued by identity politics. ..."
"... It was the takeover by neoliberalism that heralded the beginning of the end for Social Democracy. Nothing else. The consequences of this neoliberal-sized myopia, stupidity & hubris include historically low levels of trust in public institutions, and a rapidly rising tide of right-wing populism & ethnic nationalism across the West. Neoliberal policy is responsible for the current state of affairs in our societies; ergo, its advocates & pundits are to be held accountable for such events as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. This fully includes legally accountable. ..."
"... Neoliberals control by divide and conquer tactics. ..."
"... I make a salient point about the detrimental influence of neoliberal & corporate lobbying on society, and soon after a troll appears to try divert attention away from the class struggle, and channel it right back to identity politics and the scapegoating of ethnic/religious minorities. It brings to mind the following quote, actually: ..."
"... " Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacificsts for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. " - Hermann Goering ..."
"... It makes one wonder what else neoliberals and the far-right might have in common beyond the mutual adoration for corporate welfare & racial hierarchy. ..."
"... Your corporate & neoliberal sponsors are the inheritors & beneficiaries of these " American legacies". And judging by the events of the 2008 financial crisis, they are far from being done with destroying the lives of people they somehow deem inherently "inferior". ..."
"... And, if you were to give any kind of balance to your comments, you'd refer to "leftists" like Brzezinski, Carter, Rubin, Billary Clinton, Summers and Jay Rockefeller as neoliberals. ..."
"... yep, soros is finishing the job begun by Scoop Jackson and the DLC. "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" - G. Wallace 1968. He was right then, even more correct in 2014 ..."
"... Please. He was 14 and a half when the Nazis surrendered in Budapest (where he lived). Soros may be pernicious, but drop this "Nazi collaborator" bullshit. ..."
"... The Dems a party of "radical leftists"?? Are you kidding me? they are a bunch of corrupt liars at every party level that has even a slight real influence on state or national policies, by and large. The same ist true for the republicans. ..."
"... Oh, and Soros is no leftist billionaire either. He is a globalist, elitist NWO world government crook who wants to enslave mankind for his own personal enrichment no matter what. ..."
"... His "open society" and "reflexivity" bullsh!t is just some empty talk and blabbering to fool and deceive people. ..."
"... His only "principle" and "ideology" is "Soros first". he has more money than he can ever spend in his remaining life span, yet he still cannot grab enough $$. Leftist? Not! ..."
"... Soros did a great job helping Oblivio and Hillary obliterate the Democratic Party. ..."
"... And nobody seems to discuss how Putin became Public Enemy Number One in the minds of the Dems after Russia put out a warrant on Soros. Coincidence? ..."
"... Soros was only part of the problem for the democrats, Mostly the blame falls on the ones that let it go into ruin. So blinded by the money, couldn't see the obvious. ..."
"... "They have financed both sides of every war since Napoleon. They own your news, the media, your oil and your government. Yet most of you don't even know who they are. ..."
"... The corrupt avarice of the Clintons and the Chicago Mafia were all that was needed to complete the complete destruction. ..."
"... I can think of no finer display of corrupt pettiness than how they have acted since the election. And to think they almost ended up running this country. It does appear as if the Fortunes shine upon us. Time will tell. ..."
"... Kinda like all the "russian hacking" nonsense. The neoliberals bitches and moans about foreign interference in our election, but their entire national strategy relies upon same. ..."
"... Also funny how the democrat party has allowed itself to become the big money, corporate party. They rely on billionaire money to operate. All that money spend and they still couldn't get killery her crown. I never thought Id say this, but it looks like we all owe old georgie a big thank you for what he did. I doubt the germans would feel the same, but him destroying the neoliberals trying to remake it in his imagine did us a big favor this time around. ..."
"... Destroying political parties is the easiest thing on the world, as they are completely populated by greedy sociopaths. ..."
"... The neoliberals needs demons as they don't have an actual platform that is economically feasible. Unfettered immigrants coming in coupled with jobs leaving isn't sustainable. The old saying "we make it up in volume" applies. ..."
"... The Washington Post is now referred to as Bezos' Blog. Get with the program, man. ..."
"... If Trump is moderately successful in draining the swamp I think that bodes poorly for the neocon warmongering old guard wing of the party. And that is a good thing if it happens. ..."
"... The neocons can easily move over to the Democratic Party. Some of them already are. The Democrats would welcome them. ..."
"... Actually, that is where they came from. Bill Kristol sr., Perle, etc. were democrats until democrats became the anti war party in the 60's of George McGovern, they couldn't abide with that so they moved to the republican party which was historically more isolationist and anti war, because war was bad for business. ..."
"... Funny how you forgot the military-industrial complex, wall street, healthcare scam etc. That's where most of it goes, but they keep the sheeple blaming the poor. ..."
It was the end of the big year with three zeroes. The first X-Men movie had broken box office
records. You couldn't set foot in a supermarket without listening to Brittney Spears caterwauling,
"Oops, I Did It Again." And Republicans and Democrats had total control of both chambers of legislatures
in the same amount of states. That was the way it was back in the distant days of the year 2000.
In 2016, Republicans control both legislative chambers in 32 states. That's up from 16 in 2000.
What happened to the big donkey? Among other things, the Democrats decided to sell their base
and their soul to a very bad billionaire and they got a very bad deal for both.
... ... ...
Obama's wins concealed the scale and scope of the disaster. Then the party woke up after Obama
to realize that it had lost its old bases in the South and the Rust Belt. the neoliberals had hollowed it
out and transformed it into a party of coastal urban elites, angry college crybullies and minority
coalitions.
Republicans
control twice as many state legislative chambers as the Democrats. They
boast 25 trifectas
, controlling both legislative chambers and the governor's mansion. Trifectas had gone from being
something that wasn't seen much outside of a few hard red states like Texas to covering much of the
South, the Midwest and the West.
The Democrats have a solid lock on the West Coast and a narrow corridor of the Northeast, and
little else. The vast majority of the
country's legislatures are in Republican hands. The Democrat Governor's Association has a membership
in the teens. In former strongholds like Arkansas, Dems are going extinct. The party has gone from
holding national legislative
majorities to becoming a marginal movement.
... Much of this disaster had been funded with Soros money. Like many a theatrical villain, the
old monster had been undone by his own hubris. Had Soros aided the Democrats without trying to control
them, he would have gained a seat at the table in a national party. Instead he spent a fortune destroying
the very thing he was trying to control.
George Soros saw America in terms of its centers of economic and political power. He didn't care
about the vast stretches of small towns and villages, of the more modest cities that he might fly
over in his jet but never visit, and the people who lived in them. Like so many globalists who believe
that borders shouldn't exist because the luxury hotels and airports they pass through are interchangeable,
the parts of America that mattered to him were in the glittering left-wing bubble inhabited by his
fellow elitists.
Trump's victory, like Brexit, came because the neoliberals had left the white working class behind. Its
vision of the future as glamorous multicultural city states was overturned in a single night. The
idea that Soros had committed so much power and wealth to was of a struggle between populist nationalists
and responsible internationalists. But, in a great irony, Bush was hardly the nationalist that Soros
believed. Instead Soros spent a great deal of time and wealth to unintentionally elect a populist
nationalist.
... ... ...
Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered,
and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the
United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with
it.
"I don't believe in standing in the way of an avalanche," Soros complained of the Republican wave
in 2010.
But he has been trying to do just that. And failing.
"There should be consequences for the outrageous statements and proposals that we've regularly
heard from candidates Trump and Cruz,"
Soros threatened this time around. He predicted a Hillary landslide.
I wouldn't give Soros that much credit.
Sure, he helped, but face it, mainstream corporate media is now the Ministry of Truth. And both the Democrat and Republican elites have been working overtime in the last 16 years
to dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Deplorables at least understand they have been betrayed by BOTH parties.
I'm guessing that even without the billionaire polarizing meddler Soros, the limousine liberal
group, made up of the crooked Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Washerwoman-Schitz, Chuck
'the fuck' Schumer and the Obamas, was more than enough to sink a very divided, primary election-rigged
Democrat Party
" they ditched the working man to court the various hate groups - nyc skype, gay, black, illegal,
globalist warmers, etc "
Inclusive politics are not at the root of the crisis which the center-left is now experiencing
on both sides of the Atlantic. Neoliberalism is.
Neoliberal lobbyists have successfully co-opted the policies & talking points of the center-left
over the last two decades, and in so doing, poisoned progressive politics with a deep affinity
for Wall Street, financialization, and free trade. Under neoliberalism, equality for all took
a back seat to representational diversity within Western popular culture, redistribution was repurposed
to include corporate welfare programs & taxpayer funded bail-outs for banks, and tolerance became
increasingly subdued by identity politics.
Today, we witness this phenomenon across all major center-left parties & their associated media
pundits. A prominent example would be the vocal support that mainstream neoliberal outlets, such
as the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and The Economist, are consistently offering to the Social
Democratic parties & candidates. These neoliberal platforms take on a public profile of social
radicalism on key social issues, while they relentlessly advocate for unfettered free trade and
a form of laissez faire capitalism at the same time.
It was the takeover by neoliberalism that heralded the beginning of the end for Social Democracy.
Nothing else. The consequences of this neoliberal-sized myopia, stupidity & hubris include historically
low levels of trust in public institutions, and a rapidly rising tide of right-wing populism &
ethnic nationalism across the West. Neoliberal policy is responsible for the current state of
affairs in our societies; ergo, its advocates & pundits are to be held accountable for such events
as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. This fully includes legally accountable.
Erik, when haven't England and the US been governed by neoliberals? Neoliberals control by divide
and conquer tactics. In the US, elections have always been rural vs city, young vs old, white
vs non-white. Even when Obama won, he didn't win the white vote, the rural vote or the old vote.
Brexit, too, was about young vs old, rural vs city and white vs non-white.
In the big national elections, it comes down to which sides get out the vote. In the case of
the Presidential election, the Democrats, who couldn't have picked a more entitled, crooked and
repulsive candidate, just couldn't get out enough of their own vote out her. In the case of the
Brexit election, it was the fear of the non-urban whites being over run by immigrants, that made
the difference.
I make a salient point about the detrimental influence of neoliberal & corporate lobbying on society,
and soon after a troll appears to try divert attention away from the class struggle, and channel
it right back to identity politics and the scapegoating of ethnic/religious minorities. It brings
to mind the following quote, actually:
" Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacificsts for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. "
- Hermann Goering
Your corporate & neoliberal sponsors are the inheritors & beneficiaries of these " American
legacies". And judging by the events of the 2008 financial crisis, they are far from being done
with destroying the lives of people they somehow deem inherently "inferior".
Perhaps the legacies of class warfare & racial hierarchy should end.
EML, would it kill you to be a bit more balanced in your comments? You always end up with a rant
about the "far-right" and "identity politics". Do you deny that the far left constantly disparages
Jews and working class whites, who these leftists refer to as "white trash" and "trailer trash"?
And, if you were to give any kind of balance to your comments, you'd refer to "leftists" like Brzezinski,
Carter, Rubin, Billary Clinton, Summers and Jay Rockefeller as neoliberals. Try not being such
a polarizing one-trick pony, or at least save yourself time by using the term, 'ditto' for your
posts, since most of your posts appear to be redundant pleas for negative attention.
Hermann Goering, please. Now you are resorting to Godwin's Law. How pathetic.
yep, soros is finishing the job begun by Scoop Jackson and the DLC. "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" -
G. Wallace 1968. He was right then, even more correct in 2014
Please. He was 14 and a half when the Nazis surrendered in Budapest (where he lived). Soros may be pernicious, but drop this "Nazi collaborator" bullshit.
The Dems a party of "radical leftists"?? Are you kidding me? they are a bunch of corrupt liars
at every party level that has even a slight real influence on state or national policies, by and
large. The same ist true for the republicans.
Oh, and Soros is no leftist billionaire either.
He is a globalist, elitist NWO world government crook who wants to enslave mankind for his own
personal enrichment no matter what.
His "open society" and "reflexivity" bullsh!t is just some
empty talk and blabbering to fool and deceive people.
He sold out his fellow jews to the Nazis
back in the dark times of the 1930s/1940s; he virtually delivered them to the Nazio slaughterhouse
and never ever regretted it. He is doing and always will do the same to everybody else.
His only
"principle" and "ideology" is "Soros first". he has more money than he can ever spend in his remaining
life span, yet he still cannot grab enough $$. Leftist? Not!
Putin showed the world that you could aspire towards Christian nationhood, and take yourselves
out from under the debt enslaved thumb of Zoinist Rothchild Bankers. For that he must be stopped.
Soros was only part of the problem for the democrats, Mostly the blame falls on the ones that
let it go into ruin. So blinded by the money, couldn't see the obvious.
"They have financed both sides of every war since Napoleon.
They own your news, the media, your oil and your government. Yet most of you don't even know who they are."
Actually, I find this post to be a very accurate summation of what the 2016 election turned
out to be. It is true that it was not Soros alone who created the evil that was done, but he was
the money bags behind it.
The corrupt avarice of the Clintons and the Chicago Mafia were all that
was needed to complete the complete destruction. What is disturbing is how incapable those whose
guilt is writ in this fiasco are of coming to terms with their very own failures. All you see
them do is try to blame others for their iniquities.
I can think of no finer display of corrupt
pettiness than how they have acted since the election. And to think they almost ended up running
this country. It does appear as if the Fortunes shine upon us. Time will tell.
Since it came from Soros, Its "good" influence. Its only bad when such things hurt democrats.
Kinda like all the "russian hacking" nonsense. The neoliberals bitches and moans about foreign interference
in our election, but their entire national strategy relies upon same.
They import millions of
foreigners who overwhelmingly vote democrat. They wouldn't stand a chance in a national election
without a shitload of non americans voting. How exactly that isn't defined as 'foreign interference
in our elections' is beyond me.
Also funny how the democrat party has allowed itself to become the big money, corporate party.
They rely on billionaire money to operate. All that money spend and they still couldn't get killery
her crown. I never thought Id say this, but it looks like we all owe old georgie a big thank you
for what he did. I doubt the germans would feel the same, but him destroying the neoliberals trying to
remake it in his imagine did us a big favor this time around.
Also have to thank Soros for Black Lives Matter. When the revolution comes, there will be
a bunch of cops on our side, and most of the angry nutbags who kill random cops will be black,
which means there will be even more cops on our side.
Within a few years maybe we will thank Soros for a fascist Europe and the giant enema which
will follow. And the Farce will come full circle for this devil who got his start betraying
his own people to the Nazis so he could steal their shit.
"Excerpts from Perfidy are printed below. We begin with Adolf Eichmann's testimonial to Kastner's
activities, which Hecht quoted from "Eichmann's Confessions" published in the November 28 and
December 5, 1960 editions of LIFE magazine.
In Hungary my basic orders were to ship all the Jews out of Hungary in as short a time as possible.
. . . In obedience to Himmler's directive, I now concentrated on negotiations with the Jewish
political officials in Budapest . . . among them Dr. Rudolf Kastner, authorized representative
of the Zionist Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and
a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation -- and even keep
order in the collection camps -- if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand
young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price . . . was not too high for
me ....We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoked cigarets as though
he were in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking
them from a silver case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish and reserve
he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.Dr. Kastner's main concern was to make it
possible for a select group of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel. . . .
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our attitudes in the S.S. and
the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic Zionist leaders . . . . I believe that Kastner would
have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. .
. . "You can have the others," he would say, "but let me have this group here." And because Kastner
rendered us a great service by helping to keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his
group escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews. . . .
That was the "gentleman's agreement" I had with the Jews. (p.261) - See more at:
https://www.henrymakow.com/2013/11/Zionists-Sacrificed-Jews-in-Holocaust...
Everyone, especially politicians. Destroying political parties is the easiest thing on the
world, as they are completely populated by greedy sociopaths. As long as they are getting
rich they are "winning".
The Koch brothers stayed out of the fray as they do not like Trump. The neoliberals tried to make
the Kochs a demon but no one was buying the bullshit. The neoliberals needs demons as they don't
have an actual platform that is economically feasible. Unfettered immigrants coming in coupled
with jobs leaving isn't sustainable. The old saying "we make it up in volume" applies.
Not this year really. They were not behind Trump, supported HRC if I am not mistaken, after Trump
won the nomination.
Thing about the Krotch brothers that is different from Soros is they try to influence thing
to benefit themselves financially, not necessarily to destroy the country, where Soros is flat
out anti traditional American values and US constitution. The constitution is the only thing that
has kept us from being a full blown totalitarian state run by global government so far, so it
has to be destroyed in his mind.
I could be wrong, but don't think the Krotch brothers are out to destroy the constitution,
just obscenely enrich themselves bordering on illegally.
Russians put the weeds in your lawn ... at night. Soros has always been a major problem for the
entire world, and that is why the news will be very interesting this year, because everyone knows.
Happy new year.
Goodbye, Democratic Party. See you maybe in 16 years, but I doubt it. My guess is
a different party will be formed to challenge the Republicans in 2032, and the Democrats will
go the way of the Bull Moose Party, as in extinction.
The status of the national part of the Republican party seems a little up in the air to me.
If
Trump is moderately successful in draining the swamp I think that bodes poorly for the neocon
warmongering old guard wing of the party. And that is a good thing if it happens.
Actually, that is where they came from. Bill Kristol sr., Perle, etc. were democrats until democrats
became the anti war party in the 60's of George McGovern, they couldn't abide with that so they
moved to the republican party which was historically more isolationist and anti war, because war
was bad for business.
Then the self perpetuating MIC that Eisenhower warned of became ascendant
and then war was even more of a racket than it always was. Their influence came to the fore with
Bush Sr.
Reagan had some in his administration, but he fired many or moved them out of positions of
power when it came to his attention they were following their own agenda. And yet, he had enough
to convince him of the Iran contra stuff.
Funny how you forgot the military-industrial complex, wall street, healthcare scam etc. That's
where most of it goes, but they keep the sheeple blaming the poor.
Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ms. Merkel has been the most
consequential voice for punishing Russia. The next year, she welcomed a million refugees into
Germany, and pushed the rest of Europe to do the same - thus, in the view of Russian
ethno-nationalists, diluting European culture. And she still believes in a united, integrated
European Union, a bastion of liberal values and, at least implicitly, a political and economic
bulwark against Russia.
... ... ...
Here, we can draw valuable lessons from the Cold War. What Russia does today is very much the
digital version of what we Germans, before 1989, termed "Zersetzung." The term is hard to
translate, but it's best described as the political equivalent of what happens when you pour acid
on organic material: dissolution and disintegration.
The methods of Zersetzung are to cast doubt on the basic norms of the Western liberal order and
its institutions; to distort and thereby discredit the purposes of the European Union, NATO and
the free-market economy; to erode the credibility of the free press and free elections. The means
of Zersetzung include character assassination and, through the spreading of lies and fake news,
the creation of a gray zone of doubt in which facts struggle to survive.
... ... ...
Jochen Bittner is a political editor for the weekly newspaper
Die Zeit and a contributing opinion writer.
The government press release written by DHS-FBI did not mention Wikileaks in its report. Nor
did the report provide any evidence of Russian hacking in the US elections. Instead, the press
release stated that "technical indicators" of Russian hacking were in the "CSV file and XML file
attached with the PDF." However, there was no CSV or XML file or link attached with the PDF. I
was eventually able to find these two files at this link.
https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity
To see the evidence of Russian hacking first hand, I downloaded the CSV file and converted
it into a spreadsheet. The CSV file and the XML file both contained the same data. Here is the
XML link to this data which can be viewed online in a web browser.
https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR-16-20296.xml
Both files provide a list of 895 "indicators" of Russian Hacking. Unfortunately, nearly all
of these indicators are simply IP addresses. In other words, it is a list of 895 servers from
from more than 40 countries around the world. But the list also includes a few website domain
names. (Domain names are simply the name of the website such as Youtube.com). I looked up these
website domain names with the the following tool which tells us who owns the domain names and
where they are located: https://www.whois.net/
My review of these domain names confirmed that none of these domain names have any relationship
to Russian government hackers. Here are the results for four of the domain names provided by the
DHS and the FBI as evidence of Russian hacking:
ritsoperrol.ru is not in use. It is registered to a private person. The named server hosting
the domain is nserver: ns0.xtremeweb.de. This is a German web hosting and consulting company
whose address and phone number are publicly listed on their website. It is highly unlikely
that Russian hackers would use a public German web host to register and host their domain names.
littlejohnwilhap.ru is not in use and is available to be purchased. It is unlikely that
Russian hackers would use a domain name like this to launch a cyber attack on the US.
wilcarobbe.com is taken and is not in use. It is registered to Arsen Ramanov in Groznenskaya
Russia. His address, phone number and email address are all publicly listed. It is highly unlikely
that Russian hackers would use a domain name that was publicly listed. Hackers are not idiots.
one2shoppee.com is taken and is registered with GoDaddy.com. It is not currently in use.
But it is highly unlikely that Russian Hackers would register their domain names with GoDaddy
– which is a US server. In fact, it is very unlikely that Russian hackers would ever use any
US servers. They would only use their own servers.
How did these four domain names get on a list of Russian hackers? It is possible that some
unknown agents took over these domain names and may have used them for some kind of hacking activity.
However, the agents could have just as easily been from the US as from Russia. In fact, it is
not likely that these domain names were taken over by Russian hackers for the simple reason that
Russian hackers are way to smart to be using these silly tactics.
None of the 885 IP addresses have any confirmed relationship to Russian Government Hackers
An IP address is simply a numerical designation for a server. The 885 IP addresses listed in
the DHS – FBI CSV file were even more interesting. The IP addresses were located on servers from
the US and more than 40 nations around the world including more than 30 IP addresses supposedly
located in China. Here are a few of the IP addresses
Here are a four examples of IP addresses in the DHS-FBI report:
167.114.35.70 is a Canadian Corporate server specializing in the promotion of Bitcoin. They
are within a few miles of the US border.
185.12.46.178 is a Swiss corporate server associated with the domain name leavesorus.com.
The domain name leavesorus.com is currently available to be purchased. This indicates that
this is a fake domain name and likely a fake corporation.
46.102.152.132 is another Swiss corporate server this one specializing in emails and associated
with the domain name maxsultan.xyz which is a fake domain name. This also indicates that this
is another fake corporation.
178.20.55.16 is a proxy server with no known location but has been used as a TOR router
exit node. A proxy server is another name for a mirror or server used to bounce information
from one server to another in order to hide the true location of the original server. This
proxy server is associated with the domain name nos-oignons.net. This domain name was registered
on December 31 2012 and is valid until December 31 2017. In other words, whoever got this domain
name paid for its use for 5 years. But they did registered the domain name anonymously. The
website associated with this server appears to be a group in France promoting the TOR router.
They became an association in May 2013 – 5 months after getting the domain name. The group
currently has 5 members and it costs one Euro to join this group. Their website was reported
9 days ago as having been infected with the Zues virus. This infection does not leave tracks
on server logs. So it is difficult to tell where it came from. Removal of this virus requires
a complete rebuild of the server. In short, some agency decided to take out this server and
then use it to make a cyber attack on some US government agency and thus have the IP address
listed on the DHS-FBI list as one of 895 indicators of Russian hacking.
Many of the IP addresses yielded the same dead end or otherwise highly suspicious result -
meaning that some very large agency is using hundreds of servers in various countries around the
world as a front for hacking attacks. I recently researched a series of attacks on my personal
websites from hundreds of IP addresses using hundreds of servers that were supposedly located
in the Ukraine. I was able to confirm the exact location in the Ukraine that was supposedly being
used to launch literally thousands of attacks on my websites. However, it is not credible that
anyone in the Ukraine has the millions of dollars needed to be running hundreds of servers in
a remote Ukrainian location. Nor is it likely that anyone in rural Ukraine would even have the
knowledge to take care of hundreds of servers even if they did have the millions of dollars needed
to plow into buying these servers. Nor are they likely to have the knowledge needed to be running
very complex cyber attacks. Ukraine is just not a good location for servers. This experience convinced
me that attacks were being launched from other locations and were merely being routed through
Ukraine in order to mislead people about where the attacks were really coming from.
Next, the CSV file provided by DHS-FBI listed the physical location of all 885 IP addresses.
What is most ironic is that, only two of the 885 IP addresses were from servers in Russia. The
most common location of the hacking servers was the United States. Over 30 of the servers were
supposedly located in China. But it is known that the NSA has the ability to use satellite mirrors
to hide the locations of their servers – making folks believe that the attacks are coming from
China (or Ukraine or Mongolia) when in fact they are coming from servers located in the US.
... ... ...
Actually, there were two Russian servers located on lines 259 and 261. Here are the IP addresses.
93.171.203.244
95.105.72.78
Here is more information about each of these:
93.171.203.244 This is a clean broadband server located near Ufa which is a city in Russia
with one million people. It is associated with an organization called Miragroup Ltd. The website
is rxbrothers.ru. Naturally, this is a fake domain name which is available to be purchased.
Miragroup is actually a corporation located in Great Britain.
95.105.72.78 is another clean broadband server located near Ufa. The organization is JSC
Ufanet and the website is ufanet.ru which is a public broadband service started in 1997. Someone
apparently is using this broadband service to hack the US government. Could this be the smoking
gun that the Russian government is attacking the US? Think about it. If you were a Russian
hacker, would you really use a public server located in some Russian town? I don't think so.
This is more like evidence that some hacker was using the local public library.
Imagine someone launching a cyber attack from the Seattle Public library – and then our government
declaring that they have evident that the mayor of the City of Seattle was responsible for the
attack because "nothing happens in Seattle without the approval of the Mayor!". This is worse
than a silly accusation. It is ridiculous. It is irresponsible.
Real Russian Hackers do not use Windows Servers
Only three of the servers provided in the DHS/FBI report included detailed information (despite
the fact that the IP addresses provided information on all 895 servers and that DHS/FBI certainly
have detailed information on all of the servers). All three servers listed in the report were
Windows servers. It is highly unlikely that Russian hackers or Chinese hackers would be using
Windows servers. Instead, all real hackers use Linux servers because Linux servers are much more
secure than Windows servers.
https://techlog360.com/top-15-favourite-operating-systems-of-hackers/
If there really was evidence of Russian hacking, the NSA would have it
Former NSA leader turned whistleblower William Binney recently stated that if the Russians
really did hack the Democratic Party servers, the NSA would certainly have real evidence (not
the nonsense put out in the DHS-FBI CSV file). Here is his quote from a December 29 2016 article
by Glenn Greenwald: "The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any "hacked" emails
from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network. This process can sometimes
require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender
and recipient can be traced across the network."
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/top-secret-snowden-document-reveals-what-the-nsa-knew-about-previous-russian-hacking/
Anyone with any kind of technical background in defending against hacker attacks would understand
that what Binney, Snowden and Greenwald are saying is true. The evidence of their truth – most
of which was supplied by Snowden from NSA documents – is overwhelming.
Conclusion
An important research principle is to follow the money. People around the world need to ask
themselves who has the money and technical ability to be running hundreds and perhaps thousands
of real servers and real IP addresses from fake corporations using fake websites in fake locations
in more than 40 nations around the world?
What agency has already been proven to be running mass surveillance on billions of people in
more than 40 nations all around the world? Whose military cyber budget is more than 10 times larger
than the cyber warfare budget of the rest of the world combined? There is certainly an elephant
in the room – but it is not a Russian elephant.
At a televised press conference on April 2016, former NSA agent, Edward Snowden asked the Russian
leader Vladimir Putin if the Russian government engaged in mass surveillance of millions of people
in a manner similar to the NSA. Putin replied that Russian law prohibited the Russian government
from engaging in mass surveillance. Putin then pointed out that the Russian military budget was
less than 10% of the US military budget. So even if they wanted to engage in mass surveillance,
they simply did not have the money.
People also need to ask themselves why the FBI DHS chose to place their evidence in a CSV file
and XML file rather than a normal document or spreadsheet. If this were real evidence, it would
have been placed directly in the PDF report for everyone to read – not hidden away in a file the
general public has little ability to read.
Finally, for the FBI or the DHS to claim that the XML-CSV file contains evidence or even indicators
of Russian hacking is simply a false statement. It is a perfect example of fake news. Any news
agency promoting this claim without doing even the most basic of research that would easily confirm
it is false, should be listed as a fake news agency.
The real question that we should all be asking is why the DHS and FBI would destroy their reputation
by posting such a fake report?
Several years ago, our CIA claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We now know that
Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction – meaning that we went to war and spent over a trillion
dollars on a fake report. Is this new fake report a pretext for launching a cyber war against
Russia? Is it intended to justify increasing US military spending?
It is hard to say what the real purpose of this fake DHS-FBI report is. But the fact that this
silly list of IP addresses was the best evidence they could provide should be a strong indication
that there really is no evidence of Russian hacking. Instead, it is more likely that Wikileaks
is telling the truth in stating that they got the emails from a disgruntled Democratic Party insider.
J S Bach
bamawatson ,
Jan 1, 2017 8:47 PM
The DHS and FBI have no reputation to destroy. They are part of the cancerous system
and thus infamously corrupt. Look at the way they handled the Hillary emails. Total
proof of treason and they chose to ignore it. Do we expect any more honesty or competency
from such a den of snakes?
John Podesta fell for a phishing attack. So they got all of his emails. Which were
embarrassing. And Huma stupidly used Carlos Danger's perving PC for government
business. Shit like that. Oh, and SecState email was kept on an unsecure
server in some guy's bathroom and places like that. And could not be FOIAed. Or
secured. And got copied around to non-cleared persons pretty heavily and carelessly.
And who fucking cares whether the hacker who hit the jackpot happened to be Russian or to know
Russians or to have even seen Dr Zhivago or admired Baryshnykov's dancing crotch meat back
in the day?
Everyone with an email account has received phishing emails. This is not sophisticated
cloak and dagger or supercomputers or signal intercepts.
Its a typical old mean white guy Dem grandee who let ALL his email fly into the wind.
His real thoughts and feelings and plans and reactions thereto by other old mean lefties.
Which were embarrassiing.
The NSA may have hacked the DNC with a bot released and intended for someone else. ......
That can happen very easily. ..... Just ask Barry and The Israelites
Live Hard, STUXNET Is Still In The Wild Doing Mischief To This Day, Die Free
Great write-up. While I never had any doubt the DNC-hacks were 100% an inside job, simple deductive
reasoning leads to very few other conclusions, it's nice to see a thorough parsing of the gubmint's
smoke and mirrors job.
"If this were real evidence, it would have been placed directly in the PDF report for everyone
to read – not hidden away in a file the general public has little ability to read."
Anyone with Excel (which is basically anyone with a Windows PC) can open a CSV file.
Of course the "hacking" claims are BS, but there's no need for hyperbole when the facts are
so obvious.
" The real question that we should all be asking is why the DHS and FBI would destroy their
reputation by posting such a fake report?"
Why? Because the most important thing to Obama is to spread his lies and other propaganda
by whatever means necessary. No one should take any DHS or FBI report seriously after
8 years of Obama (and James Comey, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and dozens of other agency chiefs).
My respect for this work - totally impressive, even though It's mostly beyond me. If the NSA
has every keystroke that anyone makes, then they'd have everything, of course.
The Dems and all the McCain's men are just rattled that their war against Russia could be
slipping away. Their next tool will be to turn Trump or impeach him.
Don't enlist or you could find yourself in a war against Russia, dead, or a damaged veteran.
Don't let them use you.
As I wrote on Dec. 12, 2016: "Riddle me this, CIA..
1. Is it possible to hack into a computer, and not leave a trail or unique fingerprint that
leads back to You? Especially if the hack is physically initiated from outside the location
(country, company or building) from where the attack is shown to originate? E.g. initiate hack
from Macao or US. Is it possible? YES or NO?
2. Do you think that the Russian government, any other major Power or "Mr. Robot" hacker
have the ability to do #1? YES or NO?
If the answers are Yes to both these critical questions, then you got Nothing, Zip, Zilch,
Zero, Nada, Babkuss on "the Russians". At best, all you have is Conjecture or a Staged Trail.
p.s. As I wrote some days later, if it were me, I'd take a fresh "Burner Laptop" and initiate
a hack attack from some Asian country, or even from within the US. The CIA, DNC and Obama are
so full of shit, that it reeks to the moon.
"However, it is not credible that anyone in the Ukraine has the millions of dollars needed
to be running hundreds of servers in a remote Ukrainian location."
I still fail to see the logic where by the release of actual emails indicating unethical,
criminal actions of a group (DNC) results in accusations that "Russians hacked the election".
"Russian hackers" is the new "because 9/11" mantra.
A cyber-TSA will be soon groping you as you surf the web.
You will need a gov approved identification device to connect.
Randomly your connection will be paused while a cyber-LEO avatar pops up and asks for your
id and some questions about what you are doing.
Finally a proper analyzes of the report. Thanks a lot. I am still wondering
why nobody has done the same. Having read this article it's obvious they got nothing.
I bet that Obama and the deep state are gambling on that the fakestream media will do their
job and misinform the sheeple and that decades of old mistrust and fake propaganda against
the Russians will do the rest.
It does not matter if the evidence are fake, when most people already has bought it, and
the fakestream media keeps backing it up. Hell. Even republicans have swallowed the bate.
So why did they do it?. Perhaps Obama, the deep state and the FBI and all those other agencies
already knows that their days are numbered. They might as well producing just another fake
report before it's over.
If Trump wants to stop and reverse this, it's not enough to clean out the FBI and all those
other agencies, he has to do something with the fakestream media too, because what they are
doing is strait out criminal.
What you do son, is block the Chinese IP blocks at your firewall. Blook 'em all. Some hackers
will complain and give you their addresses when they do. Then you show up at their house with
6 football players and they never, ever do that again.
The NSA has the to and from metadata for sure and copies of the data content going in both
directions as a bonus. This is a false flag dog and pony show to use as an excuse to expel
Russian diplomats and maybe start WW III if 'somebody somewhere' deems it necessary.
Consider it magic 'yellow cake' or a Polish radio station. ... It won't go away because
you have iron clad evidence that it was never there to begin with.
This is the New World Odor where things are what you are told they are and if it kills a
few million people then just get over it and be Dog Blamed glad it didn't eat your homework
and kill you too.
Live Hard, It Is Hard To Argue With Rock Solid Reasoning Like That, Die Free
If the Russian hackers are so damn good at what they do, it seems ludicrous that they would
leave great big arrows pointing towards themselves. Why, it's almost like a guy that
drives a truck into a crowd leaving his identity card in the cab of the truck. Or it's
like a bunch of guys that hijacked planes and flew them into buildings using their real names
and their indestructible passpoorts to board the planes. ZH had an article yesterday
quoting that hard-hitting political publication Rolling Stone magazine saying that this entire
Russian hacking report has all the earmarks of a repeat of Bush the Lesser's WMD in Iraq report.
I gotta agree with Rolling Stone. If a hacker is really good, and we keep getting force-fed
how good the Russians are, they AIN'T going to leave their calling card in the server(s) they've
hacked.
Similar to spy satellites there is a level of clarity and transparency that many advanced
nations have.
That is why Hillary is such a ridiculous cunt for using a private server to perform her
clinton foundation and day to day operations upon and why the US government "explicitly prohibits
it."
The leaks originated and were targeted at that ridiculous cunt Hillary and she made us all
less safe by being corrupt, stupid, and unethical in her office of trust.
NSA also has all.. ALLLL the emails that that criminal cunt Hillary sent.
I really do think we need a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of all of this.
a C&C command and control server could be anywhere, often these servers are used by cyber
squating
Somewhere in this monster bureaucracy imitating a government "for the people" is somebody[s]
collecting a fat paycheck and bennies to make damn sure our election didn't get hacked by Russians.
Could somebody please fire the fucker if we were actually hacked.
I am suffering from bullshit burnout. I just want the election to be over for awhile, my
god what an inept bunch of hacks running the country, [into the ground].
The entire Russian "hacking" saga was nonsense from day 1 and indicative of severe structural
problems confronting US capitalism and raging battles going on between competing factions within
the financial elite controlling US foreign policy. These divisions have become more pronounced
following: 1) Trump's upset victory in November and 2) the military debacle for the US/NATO
in Syria. Trumps victory notwithstanding, expect these divisions to become increasingly ferocious
as the economic vice continues tightening. Very dangerous times ahead.
Any hacker good enough to work for a big government agency would be good enough to not get
caught. All big governments spy and hack eachother. They may know they've been hacked and even
speculate who may have done it, but there is no so called definitive "evidence" at that level.Evidence
of a hack probably, evidence of who.... no fucking way. Here the government goes again trying
to create a boogeyman to promote some rich people's agenda. Pretty sure the NSA spys and hacks
eeeevverryyybody.... hypocrites.
Asked what that information included, the Republican President-elect said, " You will find out on
Tuesday or Wednesday ." He did not elaborate.
Trump also reiterated his belief that others might be responsible for the cyberattacks: "I know
a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And
I also know things that other people don't know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation."
"I think it's unfair if we don't know. It could be somebody else," Reuters cited Trump as telling
the media.
He also added that computers are a risky form of communication. "It's very important, if you have
something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old fashioned way
because I'll tell you what, no computer is safe," Mr. Trump added. "I don't care what they say, no
computer is safe. I have a boy who's 10 years old, he can do anything with a computer. You want something
to really go without detection, write it out and have it sent by courier."
"... The BSC didn't just recruit journalists or influence newspapers in it's operation to tilt public opinion towards the Allied cause. They engaged in misinformation/disinformation campaigns against people they perceived as their enemies; anti-New Dealers, isolationists, and right-wing Republicans. ..."
"... They had sympathetic journalists plant false new stories in their papers that attempted to incite legal action, death threats, and in at least one instance an eviction notice from the target's home through intimidation of the landlord. ..."
I don't think Putin and Lavrov are playing good cop/bad cop. As per the rules of diplomacy
Lavrov expects to answer every tit with a retaliatory tat. Putin is different. His professional
experience is formerly of counter-intelligence. Which means he probably realizes what's happening
and Russia isn't the actual target in this propaganda war.
Taibbi and his friends in the media are right. They have every reason to be worried. After
all they're the primary target in this propaganda war. It took me awhile to figure out what was
happening even though something seemed familiar after the Washington Post story about fake news
and the slandering of Naked Capitalism. I finally figured out why and the reason the CIA was taking
the lead in promoting the "Russia election hacks!" story. But then I remembered the stories about
the British Security Coordination (BSC)
The BSC didn't just recruit journalists or influence newspapers in it's operation to tilt public
opinion towards the Allied cause. They engaged in misinformation/disinformation campaigns against
people they perceived as their enemies; anti-New Dealers, isolationists, and right-wing Republicans.
They had sympathetic journalists plant false new stories in their papers that attempted to incite
legal action, death threats, and in at least one instance an eviction notice from the target's
home through intimidation of the landlord.
What the CIA is doing now reeks of the BSC. Up to and including inciting the country into a
war. After all the CIA's predecessor agency the OSS learned everything they knew at their feet.
How low Politico fall by publishing this neocon trash. Which probably belongs to some major neocon
publications which publish Kagan and like.
As Robert Parry noted "Neocons want a new Cold War – all the better to pick the U.S. taxpayers'
pockets – but this reckless talk and war profiteering could spark a nuclear war and leave the world
to the cockroaches"
Trading Places Neocons and Cockroaches – Consortiumnews
This "bloodthirsty Molly" is not a vampire. She is yet another female warmonger, a neocon of the
mold of Hillary Clinton, who lost her plush job with the ousting of Saakashvili in Georgia
and desperately wants it back even if American start ding for this "noble purpose".
Her article might be considered a classic in neocon demonization of Putin. Complete detachment from
the reality of collapsing neoliberal ideology and inability of the USA to maintain its global neoliberal
empire despite recent success in Ukraine (as well as Brazil and Argentina), the success which pushed
the majority of Ukrainian population on Central African standard of living with income less then two
dollars a day. And pensioners dying from hunger in cities, and lack of medical care in rural areas,
just to satisfy the US imperial ambitions. And they replaced corrupt and criminal neoliberal government
of Yanukovich with even more corrupt and more neoliberal Provisional Government first (which literally
was ready to privatize Ukraine state access to Western companies for pennies on the dollar) and then
Poroshenko which drive the economy even lower breaking all ties with its former major market -- Russia
-- for the ideological reasons, of course. The country became the debt salve of the West, another neo-colony.
The author is right the the West in now at war -- Cold War II, but he is lying that it sinot recognized
by Western government. It was launched by Western government to colonize Russia as neoliberalism needs
market expansion and cheap oil to sustain neoliberal globalization, and Russian is one of the few countries
on the Earth which not fully colonized (it was under Yeltsin).
Notable quotes:
"... Political warfare is meant to achieve specific political outcomes favorable to the Kremlin: it is preferred to physical conflict because it is cheap and easy. The Kremlin has many notches in its belt in this category, some of which have been attributed, many likely not. It's a mistake to see this campaign in the traditional terms of political alliances: rarely has the goal been to install overtly pro-Russian governments. Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones ..."
"... Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not "propaganda" as we've come to think of it, but the less obvious techniques known in Russia as " active measures " and " reflexive control " . Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests. ..."
Increasingly, people in Russia's sphere of influence were deciding that the values that were supposed
to bind the West together could no longer hold. That the world order Americans depend on had already
come apart.
... ... ...
What both administrations fail to realize is that the West is already at war, whether it wants
to be or not. It may not be a war we recognize, but it is a war. This war seeks, at home and abroad,
to erode our values, our democracy, and our institutional strength; to dilute our ability to sort
fact from fiction, or moral right from wrong; and to convince us to make decisions against our own
best interests.
... ... ...
Those on the Russian frontier, like my friends from Ukraine and Estonia, have already seen the
Kremlin's new toolkit at work. The most visible example may be "green men," the unlabeled Russian-backed
forces that suddenly popped up to seize the Crimean peninsula and occupy eastern Ukraine. But the
wider battle is more subtle, a war of subversion rather than domination. The recent interference
in the American elections means that these shadow tactics have now been deployed – with surprising
effectiveness – not just against American allies, but against America itself. And the only way forward
for America and the West is to embrace the spirit of the age that Putin has created, plow through
the chaos, and focus on building what comes next.
... ... ...
First, it is a war. A thing to be won, decisively - not a thing to be negotiated or bargained. It's
all one war: Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, the Baltics, Georgia. It's what Vladislav Surkov, Putin's 'grey
cardinal' and lead propagandist, dubbed "non-linear
war" in his science fiction story "Without Sky," in 2014.
Second, it's all one
war machine. Military, technological, information, diplomatic, economic, cultural, criminal, and
other tools are all controlled by the state and deployed toward one set of strategic objectives.
This is the
Gerasimov doctrine, penned by Valery Gerasimov, the Russian Chief of the General Staff, in 2013.
Political warfare is meant to achieve specific political outcomes favorable to the Kremlin:
it is preferred to physical conflict because it is cheap and easy. The Kremlin has many notches in
its belt in this category, some of which have been attributed, many likely not. It's a mistake to
see this campaign in the traditional terms of political alliances: rarely has the goal been to install
overtly pro-Russian governments. Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic
regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones.
Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic
ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not "propaganda" as we've come to think of it, but the
less obvious techniques known in Russia as "active
measures" and "reflexive
control". Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests.
Fourth, the diplomatic side of this non-linear war isn't a foreign policy aimed at building a
new pro-Russian bloc, Instead, it's what the Kremlin calls a "multi-vector" foreign policy, undermining
the strength of Western institutions by coalescing alternate - ideally temporary and limited - centers
of power. Rather than a stable world order undergirded by the U.S. and its allies, the goal is an
unstable new world order of "all against all." The Kremlin has tried to accelerate this process by
both inflaming crises that overwhelm the Western response (for example, the migration crisis in Europe,
and the war in eastern Ukraine) and by showing superiority in 'solving' crises the West could not
(for example, bombing Syria into submission, regardless of the cost, to show Russia can impose stability
in the Middle East when the West cannot).
This leads to the final point: hard power matters. Russia maintains the second most powerful military
in the world, and spends more than 5 percent of its weakened GDP on defense. Russia used military
force to invade and occupy Georgian territory in 2008
to disrupt the expansion
of NATO, and in 2013 in Ukraine
to disrupt the expansion of the EU. They have invested heavily in military reform, new generations
of hardware and weapons, and expansive special operations training, much of which debuted in the
wars in Ukraine and Syria. There is no denying that Russia is willing to back up its rhetoric and
policy with deployed force, and that the rest of the world notices.
How did we reach this point? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western security and political
alliances expanded to fill the zone of instability left behind. The emerging Russian security state
could only define this as the strategic advance of an enemy. The 9/11 attacks shattered Western concepts
of security and conflict and expanded NATO's new mission of projecting security. When Putin offered
his assistance, we effectively responded "no thanks," thinking in particular of his bloody, ongoing,
scorched-earth war against the Chechens. We did it for the right reasons. Nonetheless, it
infuriated Putin. This was the last moment when any real rapprochement with Putin's Russia was
possible.
... ... ...
Molly K. McKew (@MollyMcKew) advises governments and political parties on foreign policy and
strategic communications. She was an adviser to Georgian President Saakashvili's government from
2009-2013, and to former Moldovan Prime Minister Filat in 2014-2015.
"... Those anonymous U.S. officials who reported Russian hacking code had been found "within the system" of a Vermont power utility must've been surprised to learn the code was on a laptop that wasn't actually connected to the grid . ..."
"... [Was "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."] ..."
"... [was "penetration"] ..."
"... Our posture is fucking horrific. We support Israel even when they blatantly violate international law. We've long sided with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. We overthrew Iraq, creating ISIS. We're largely responsible for arming a good chunk of the terrorists in the world. Yeah, Russia does shitty things, but our problems are big enough that our first concern should be fixing our own problems. Not understand that, along with the unbelievable hubris of the Clintonites, is why the Democrats got their asses kicked in this election, and why they've been getting their asses kicked for so long. ..."
"... The U.S. government has killed, or caused the death of, an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war. War is extremely profitable for some corporations. ..."
"... Exactly, bullshit. It sounds to me like an employee used his laptop to visit an infected website, or answered a general phishing mail. Hardly an attack aimed at the grid, and volume cranked up to 11 by WP as a part of the general current panic to glorify Obama and what his administration has done, and undermine the incoming administration. ..."
"... In some ways it is a success story. The Government put out a warning for a specific malware and how to detect it. The company appropriately scanned based on that warning, found the malware on a isolated laptop (which was isolated from grid systems), and appropriately reported it. ..."
"... Security experts have been warning of possible foreign hacking for decades . But why this sudden spate of "Russia hacked X" stories now? Why not back when our Secretary of State was running an illegal, private, unsecured email server through which she transmitted classified information [politifact.com]? ..."
"... Simple: The Washington Post wanted Hillary to win the Presidential election, and reminding people how her action made it easier for Russian hackers to gain access to classified information wouldn't have helped her. ..."
"... But publishing it now helps support the false narrative [theintercept.com] that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not disgruntled Democratic Party staffers [washingtontimes.com], and thus supposedly harms President-elect Donald Trump, whom the Washington Post and it's employees almost universally loath. That's the entire reason the story is being written and published now. ..."
"... NSA has failed us again. Instead protecting America, they are wasting their and our time by mass collecting data on citizens. Instead of making sure exploits are fixed to keep our systems secure, they hold onto them so they can use them against us and other countries. ..."
Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday January 01, 2017 @05:12PM from the power-play dept.
Those
anonymous U.S. officials who reported Russian hacking code had been found "within the system" of
a Vermont power utility must've been surprised to learn the code was on a laptop
that wasn't actually connected to the
grid .
The Washington Post has updated their original story, which now reports that "authorities"
say there's no indication that Russian hackers have penetrated the U.S. electric grid. The Post's
newly-edited version appears below (with their original, now-deleted text preseved inside brackets).
A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration
has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility
, according to U.S. officials. While
the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials
who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter, the discovery underscores
the vulnerabilities of the nation's electrical grid... [Was "the penetration of the nation's
electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."]
American officials, including one senior administration official, said they are not yet sure what
the intentions of the Russians might have been. The incursion [was "penetration"]
may have
been designed to disrupt the utility's operations or as a test by the Russians to see whether they
could penetrate a portion of the grid... According to the report by the FBI and DHS, the hackers
involved in the Russian operation used fraudulent emails that tricked their recipients into revealing
passwords. The Vermont utility does report that they'd "detected suspicious Internet traffic"
on the laptop, but they believe subsequent news coverage got the story wrong. "It's unfortunate that
an official or officials improperly shared inaccurate information with one media outlet, leading
to multiple inaccurate reports around the country."
Our posture is fucking horrific. We support Israel even when they blatantly violate international
law. We've long sided with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. We overthrew
Iraq, creating ISIS. We're largely responsible for arming a good chunk of the terrorists in the
world. Yeah, Russia does shitty things, but our problems are big enough that our first concern
should be fixing our own problems. Not understand that, along with the unbelievable hubris of
the Clintonites, is why the Democrats got their asses kicked in this election, and why they've
been getting their asses kicked for so long.
As it stands right now, the best thing that could happen for world peace is for the US to go
down in flames. I would rather that not happen, but if we listen to people like you instead of
behaving like adults, the rational choice for the world at large is to get rid of us.
"... the US's general posture in the world is wildly preferable..."
The U.S. government
has many secret and semi-secret agencies. No one, literally no one, knows all of them, or which
are badly managed. As we've seen, the secret and semi-secret U.S. government agencies often hire
outside consulting companies that often have areas of sloppy management. The U.S. government is,
by some measures, such as money spent, the most violent in the world.
The U.S. government has
killed, or caused the death of, an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world
war. War is extremely profitable for some corporations.
Bush and Cheney started a war that
was profitable for them. The U.S. has the largest percentage of its citizens in prison, of any
country, in any century. The prison system is hugely profitable for prison corporations.
While the phishing attack may have originated in Russia, I find it disingenious to portray
everything as state sponsored when the evidence is weak at best. To me its something akin to suggesting
we need to retaliate against Australia every time Julian Assange takes a leak.
Some organizations started to inject fake phishing emails into their communication systems.
All employees who clicked get their heads bashed with a rock.
Anonymous Coward, December 31, 2016 @10:44AM (
#53584563
)
Exactly, bullshit. It sounds to me like an employee used his laptop to visit an infected website,
or answered a general phishing mail. Hardly an attack aimed at the grid, and volume cranked up
to 11 by WP as a part of the general current panic to glorify Obama and what his administration
has done, and undermine the incoming administration.
Or the WP feels it is simply unimportant
to get proper attribution and any of the details right.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
In some ways it is a success story. The Government put out a warning for a specific malware
and how to detect it. The company appropriately scanned based on that warning, found the malware
on a isolated laptop (which was isolated from grid systems), and appropriately reported it.
It should be deeply concerning, but that's effectively the result of the complete lack of
care regarding OpSec and vital infrastructure. We've had reasons to be deeply concerned about
that for years, if not decades, but now seems like an awfully convenient time to trot out a
fact that would likely have applied at just about any point in time if we did an audit of our
power grid.
What is deeply concerning? The bullshit false headline?
I'm very happy to come to the comments section and find mostly mocking and people who looked
beyond the headline. Would have been nice if the editors did that.
According to an earlier post the laptop that was allegedly infected was not connected to the
electric company's grid control system. That conclusion answered my first question. Any vital
utility system should absolutely never have it's control system of computers connected to the
Internet. If somehow that's the case, those responsible need a very long prison sentence. There
also needs to be other security measures to prevent folks having direct access to these control
systems from sabotaging them.
Worked in the industry for a decade. Wrote simulation shells that did short term forecasts
based on on system conditions, did data reductions etc (e.g. This unit IS going down for unscheduled
maintenance, how much will it cost to shut it down RTF now vs after afternoon peak?) Went on to
'tech lead' for significant energy trading/risk management platform. Ran on many traders and grid
operators desks...don't ask, won't tell. Did once see a bug because grand total on printable VAR
only had room for 10 digits plus sign. Assigned to Brahmin coder, week later I fixed it myself,
I digress.
What you say isn't really possible. What they typically do have is a secure network, which
runs operations, staffed with lots of ex-military actual Engineering school grads. That network
is being monitored by redundant data integrators which present integrated (by some time interval,
usually hours/half hours or minutes, back when I was up to my nose in it) system data to a second
less secure (but still as secure as any corporate) network where routine operations run. That
server is usually locked down tight, read only from the less secure network; but that is only
software. They also like to run diverse OSs, lots of 'big iron' and Unixes and home brewed binary
data formats. These things were mostly architected before Windows was common, particularly on
the secure side it's still loaded with 'legacy', likely to remain so until they have a complete
staff turnover. Old Dilbert with neckbeard flipping a nickle at Wally and telling him to get a
better computer, that's the dude.
Routine operations need access to internet based facilities. To schedule transmission line
capacity, trade power, get closing prices from grid operators, weather forecasts and unit availability
from neighbors (lots of VPNs). But that part of the operations could more or less crash and burn
and it will only cost money (and extra CO2). Operations, more or less, ignores trading at the
minute by minute level. Trading gives them trade schedules and operations will try their best.
But if 'shit happens' they keep the lights on and let the accountants worry about reconciling
to 'what should have happened'. Which is sometimes a bitch of a computational problem, fortunately
most everybody involved are engineers and close enough is close enough. Pennies aren't statistically
significant; try and explain that to an accountant. Don't recommend it, just say 'not a material
difference' and get on with your life, I'm digressing again.
Security experts have been warning of possible foreign hacking for decades . But why
this sudden spate of "Russia hacked X" stories now? Why not back when our Secretary of State was
running an illegal, private, unsecured email server through which she
transmitted classified information [politifact.com]?
Simple: The Washington Post wanted Hillary to win the Presidential election, and reminding
people how her action made it easier for Russian hackers to gain access to classified information
wouldn't have helped her.
But publishing it now helps support the
false narrative [theintercept.com] that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not
disgruntled Democratic Party staffers [washingtontimes.com], and thus supposedly harms President-elect
Donald Trump, whom the Washington Post and it's employees almost universally loath. That's
the entire reason the story is being written and published now.
Further reading here
[battleswarmblog.com] and here
[battleswarmblog.com].
What do you think the under/over is for MSM "Russian Hacking" stories between now and January
20?
NSA has failed us again. Instead protecting America, they are wasting their and our time by
mass collecting data on citizens. Instead of making sure exploits are fixed to keep our systems
secure, they hold onto them so they can use them against us and other countries.
If am I to believe this Russian hacking our systems like the Government is pushing, then the
blame goes straight on the NSA and those who backed them.
The headline is complete bullshit. Can the author not even read? The grid was not penetrated,
hacked, or comprimised. No report says it was. This is totally a fabrication from the reporters.
"We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to
our organization's grid systems."
The headline is complete bullshit. Can the author not even read? The grid was not penetrated,
hacked, or comprimised. No report says it was. This is totally a fabrication from the reporters.
"We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected
to our organization's grid systems."
So other
sources [cnn.com] say more than just a laptop and last I checked a power station is part of
the grid
In my opinion,
a good indication of Jeff Bezos's management ability is any Amazon web page. Amazon web pages
distract you from buying something by trying to sell other things.
"... In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin
Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country,
the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke
Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians. ..."
"... Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known
in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk
with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in
the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the
rough wards of Chicago politics. ..."
"... But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator
on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White
House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand
marshal. ..."
"... A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of
integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called
it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs
a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s. ..."
"... At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods
blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan
mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit.
..."
"... "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor
and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore
and there's the homeless person and there's the professor." ..."
"... If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive response
miles worse – than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes. ..."
"... I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election. He's
gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything. ..."
"... Meanwhile, a number of IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published
by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone a connection
to the Russian government. Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting websites running
WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday. ..."
"... Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently
funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be "made in Ukraine." The version tested by the FBI/DHS
report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool's website is 4.1.1b. ..."
"... s committed to stabilising its CO2 emissions "around 2030 ". ..."
"... "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is
even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas
tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll
find." "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything." ..."
"... "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is
even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas
tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll
find." "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything." ..."
"... *I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to yesterday's hastily written comment on
the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment can be attributed to my gullibility. ..."
"... The Good Spy (2014) ..."
"... Road Work: Among Tyrants, Heroes, Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) ..."
"... "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is
even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas
tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll
find." "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything." ..."
Vladimir #Putin: I am inviting all children of the #US diplomats in #Russia to the #NewYear's
and #Christmas celebration in the #Kremlin
When Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, he stood 6 ft 1 in tall. As he exits, his
stature has diminished to about 6 inches.
Google adds that his daughter Malia has the same 6 ft 1 in height as her dad. If she ends up
following the unwritten but almost universally observed rule that a woman's partner should at
least equal her height, it's going to really restrict the candidate pool. Only 11 percent of males
20-29 years old are 6 ft 1 in or more, according to the Census Bureau.
With regards to parenting, Barack and Michelle Obama are doing the right thing ie. ensuring
a supportive learning environment at home so their kids develop their own critical thinking skills
and are better equipped to make their own way in the world as they mature (similar to the Deutschers
with their daughter Alma, likewise those of two other child music prodigies, Emily Bear and Jay
Greenberg.)
So, Malia will know as and when required to run hoops around any basketballer (!), on the other
hand, the young girl in the following family may well, in some instances, actually require a few
basketballers run hoops around her father and his misplaced parenting priorities/concerns!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/31/girl-9-faces-shunned-ultra-orthodox-jewish-group-eating-mcdonalds/
What a gray, joyless life Orthodox men must lead, prevented from socializing with girls and
women, with only their dusty old tomes of Judaic law for company.
Now that 0bama is about to exit as US Pres, perhaps it is time to revisit the Who Is Worse:
Bush43 v 0bama question.
Conventional wisdom among "Progressive" pundits, even good ones like SecularTalk, seems to
be "yes, 0bama is better than Bush43, but that is a very low bar, & not a real accomplishment.
0bama still sucks".
IMHO, 0bama's relentless pursue of 1 Grand "Bargain" Ripoff & 2 TPP, may alone make him Even
Worse than Bush43, as far as to damage inflicted on USians had 0bama been successful in getting
these 2 policies. 0bama tried for years getting these 2 policies enacted, whereas Bush43 tried
quickly to privatize SS but then forgot it, & IIRC enacted small trade deals (DR-CAFTA ?). Bush43
focus seemed to be on neocon regime change & War On Terra TM, & even then IIRC around ~2006 Bush43
rejected some of Darth Cheney's even more extremish neocon policy preferences, with Bush43 rejecting
Cheney's desired Iran War.
IMHO both policies would've incrementally killed thousands of USians annually, far more than
1S1S or the Designated Foreign Boogeyman Du Jour TM could ever dream of. Grand Ripoff raising
Medicare eligibility age (IIRC 67 to 69+ ?) would kill many GenX & younger USians in the future.
TPP's pharma patent extensions would kill many USians, especially seniors. These incremental killings
might exceed the incremental life savings from the ACA (mainly ACA Adult Medicaid expansion).
Furthemore, 0bama could've potentially achieved MedicareForAll or Medicare Pt O – Public Option
in ~2010 with Sen & House D majorities, & 0bama deliberately killed these policies, as reported
by FDL's Jane Hamsher & others.
Bush43 indirectly killed USians in multiple ways, including Iraq War, War On Terra, & failing
to regulate fin svcs leading to the 2008 GFC; however it would seem that 0bama's Death Toll would
have been worse.
"What do you think?!" (c) Ed Schultz
How do Bush43 & 0bama compare to recent Presidents including Reagan & Clinton? What do you
expect of Trump? I'd guesstimate that if Trump implements P Ryan-style crapification of Medicare
into an ACA-like voucher system, that alone could render Trump Even Worse than 0bama & the other
1981-now Reganesque Presidents.
It does seem like each President is getting Even Worse than the prior guy in this 21st Century.
#AmericanExceptionalism (exceptionally Crappy)
You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few bad things Obamanation did:
1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President
ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared
by Congress.
2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal
and unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture,
and assassinate anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.
3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered
because of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief
in austerity helped defeat Clinton 2016.
HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm.
Deporting more people than Presidents before him.
Passing the Korea and Columbia free trade pacts, even lying about what the pact did to get the
Columbian one passed. KORUS alone made our trade deficit with Korea soar and lost an estimated
100,000 jobs in the US (and not those part time ones being created).
Had the chance to pass a real infrastructure repair/stimulus package, didn't.
Had the chance to put the Post Office in the black and even start a Postal Bank, didn't. Didn't
even work to get rid of the Post Office killing requirement to fund its pension 75 years out.
Furthering the erosion of our civil rights by making it legal to assassinate American citizens
without trial.
Instead of kneecapping the move to kill public education by requiring any charter school that
receives federal funding to be non-profit with real limits on allowable administrative costs,
expanded them AND expanded the testing boondoggle with Common Core.
Libya.
Expansion of our droning program.
While I do give him some credit for both the Iran deal and the attempt to rein in the Syria
mistake, I also have to take points away for not firing Carter and demoting or even bringing Votel
before a military court after their insubordination killing the ceasefire.
Should I continue. Bush was evil, Obama the more effective one.
Was that a disastrous choice? Certainly and it is a big one, but it also ignores how much of
the disastrous choices attached to that decision Barack H. Obama has either continued or expanded
upon. It also ignores how that war continues under Obama. Remember when we left Iraq? Oh, wait
we haven't we just aren't there in the previous numbers.
And what about Libya? You remember that little misadventure. Which added to our continued Saudi/Israeli
determined obsession with Syria has led to a massive refugee crisis in Europe. How many were killed
there. How much will that cost us fifteen years on?
I get that the quagmire was there before Obama. I also get that he began to get a clue late
in his administration to stop listening to the usual subjects in order to make it better. But
see that thing above about not firing people who undermined that new direction in Syria, and are
probably now some of the most pressing secret voices behind this disastrous Russia Hacked US bull.
But I think only focusing on the original decision also ignores how effective Obama has been
at normalize crime, corruption, torture and even assassination attached to those original choices
– something that Bush didn't manage (and that doesn't even consider the same decriminalization
and normalization done for and by the financial industry). Bush may have started the wheel down
the bumpy road, but Obama put rubber on the wheel and paved the road so now it is almost impossible
to stop the wheel.
As mentioned, Bush is a very low bar for comparison, and if that's the best presidential comparison
that can be made with Obama, then that says it all.
Mr. O long ago received my coveted Worst_President_Ever Award (and yes the judging included
Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson).
Handed the golden platter opportunity to repudiate the myriad policy disasters of Bush (which
as cited above cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives) he chose instead to continue them
absolutely unchanged, usually with the same personnel. Whether it was unprosecuted bank crime
in the tens of billions, foreign policy by drone bomb, health care mega-bezzle, hyper-spy tricks
on everyday Americans, and corporo-fascist globalist "trade" deals, Mr. O never disappointed his
Big Wall St, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Surveillance-Industrial Complex constituents.
Along the way he reversed the polarity of American politics, paving the way for a true corporo-fascist
to say the slightest thing that might be good for actual workers and get into the White House.
History will remember him as the president who lost Turkey and The Philippines, destroyed any
remaining shreds of credibility with utterly specious hacking claims and war crime accusations
of other nations, and presided over an era of hyper-concentration of billionaire wealth in a nation
where 70% of citizens would need to borrow to fund a $400 emergency. Those failures are now permanently
branded as "Democrat" failures. The jury is unanimous: Obama wins the award.
"HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm."
Exactly. That is #1 on my list making him worst president ever.
I would question "ever" simply because I know I don't know enough about the history of previous
presidents, and I doubt any of us do; even historians who focus on this kind of thing, supposing
we had any in our midst, might be hard put to it to review all 44 thoroughly.
I vote the mortgage fraud situation (see
Chain of Title by David
Dayen -not really a plug for the book) as the worst aspect of the Obama Administration. What
to say about it? Regular readers of this site are well versed in the details but one aspect of
it needs to be expounded upon; stand on the housetops and shout it kind of exposition: the mortgage
fraud worked on millions (3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million) shows that rule of law is now destroyed in
the land. Dictionary .com says this about the phrase
Rule of Law: the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable
to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.
* The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities
are accountable under the law.
* The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental
rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
* The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair,
and efficient.
* Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals
who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities
they serve.
I would invite the reader to take a moment and apply those principles to what is known about
the situation concerning mortgage fraud worked on millions of homeowners during the past two decades.
The Justice Department's infamous attempts to cover up horribly harmful schemes worked by
the mortgage industry perpetrators involved the cruel irony of aiding and abetting systemic racism.
Not a lot was said in the popular press about the subject of reverse redlining but I'm convinced
by the preponderance of evidence that overly complicated mortgage products were taken into the
neighborhoods of Detroit (90% Black or Latin American, Hispanic) and foisted off on unsuspecting
homeowners. Those homeowners did not take accountants and lawyers with them to the signing but
that's how those schemes should have been approached; then most of those schemes would have hit
the trashcan. Many a charming snake oil salesman deserves innumerable nights of uncomfortable
rest for the work they did to destroy the neighborhoods of Detroit and of course many other neighborhoods
in many other cities. For this discussion I am making this a separate topic but I realize it is
connected to the overall financial skulduggery worked on us all by the FIRE sector.
However, let me return to the last principle promulgated by the World Justice Project pertaining
to Rule Of Law and focus on that: "Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent
representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect
the makeup of the communities they serve." Now hear this: "are of sufficient number" for there,
and gentle reader, please take this to bed with you at the end of your day: we fail as a nation.
But look to the 'competent, ethical and independent' clause; we must vow to not sink into despair.
This subject is a constant struggle. Google has my back on this: Obama, during both campaigns
of '08 and '12, took millions from the very financial sector that he planned to not dismay and
then was in turn very busy directing the Attorney General of The United States, the highest law
officer in the country, to not prosecute. These very institutions that were in turn very busy
taking property worth billions. 12 million stolen homes multiplied times the average home value
= Trillions?
Finally, my main point here (I am really busy sharpening this ax, but it's a worthy ax) is
the issue of systemic racism- that the financial institutions in this country work long hours
to shackle members of minority neighborhoods into monetarily oppressive schemes in the form of
mortgages, car loans, credit cards and personal loans (think pay day scammers) and these same
makers of the shackles have the protection of the highest officials in the land. Remember the
pitchforks Obama inveighed? Irony of cruel ironies, two black men, both of whom appear to be of
honorable bearing, (Holder moved his chair right directly into the financiers, rent takers of
Covington & Burling ) work to cement the arrangements of racist, oppressive scammers who of
course also work their playbooks on other folks.
To finalize, the subject of rule of law that I have worked so assiduously to sharpen, applies
to all of the other topics we can consider as failures of the Obama Presidency. So besides racism
and systemic financial fraud we can turn to some top subjects that make '09 to '17 the nadir of
the political culture of the United States of America. Drone wars, unending war in the Middle
East, attempts to place a cloak of secrecy on the workings of the Federal Government, the reader
will have their own axes to sharpen but I maintain if the reader will fervently apply and dig
into the four principles outlined above, she, he, will agree that the principles outlining Rule
of Law have been replaced by Rule of the Person.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
Arghhh, the server is apparently napping-more caffeine please for the cables.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
I have to tell you it is inaccurate in material respects, and many of the people who played
important roles in the fight were written out entirely or marginalized.
GW Bush sort of had two administrations. The first two years and the last two years was sort
of a generic Republican but sane administration, sort of like his father's, and was OK. The crazy
stuff happened in the middle four years, which maybe not coincidentally the Republicans had majorities
in both house of Congress.
Obama signed off on the Big Bailout (as did GW Bush, but my impression is that the worst features
of the Big Bailout were on Obama's watch(), and that defined his administration. Sometimes you
get governments defined by one big thing, and that was it. But I suspect he may have prevented
the neocons from starting World War III, but that is the sort of thing we won't know about until
decades have passed, if we make it that long.
Obama promised hope and change and delivered the exact opposite – despair and decline. Obama
should be remembered as the Great Normalizer. All of the shitty things that were around when he
was inaugurated are now normalized. TINA to the max, in other words.
It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics.
You got it. Obama was hired to employ "The Shock Doctrine" and he did. He was and is "a Chicago
Boy"; the term Naomi Klein used for the neoliberals who slithered out of the basements of U of
Chicago to visit austerity on the masses for the enhancement of the feudal lords. It is laughable
that he said last week that he could have beaten Trump. As always, He implied that it was the
"message" not the policy. And that he could "sell" that message better than Hilary. For him it
was always about pitching that Hopey Changey "One America" spleel that suckered so many. The Archdruid
calls this "the warm fuzzies". But the Donald went right into the John Edwards land of "The Two
Americas". He said he came from the 1%; but was here to work for the 99% who had been screwed
over by bad deals. We will see if the Barons will stand in his way or figure out that it might
be time to avoid those pitchforks by giving a little to small businesses and workers in general.
Like FDR, will they try to save capitalism?
The Donald has the bad trade deals right, but looks like he doesn't know what havoc Reagan
wreaked on working people's household incomes and pension plans by breaking any power unions had
and by coming up with the 401K scam; plus the Reagan interest rates that devastated farmers and
ranchers and the idea of rewarding a CEO who put stock price above research and development and
workers' salaries. But again, I believe it was a Democratic congress and a Democratic president
Carter who eliminated the Usury law in 1979. From then on with stagnating wages, people began
the descent into debt slavery. And Jimmy started the Shock Doctrine by deregulating the airlines
and trucking. But he did penance. Can't see Obama doing that.
And once usary laws went away, credit cards were handed out to college students, with no co-sign,
even if students had no work or credit history and were unemployed.
It took until just a few years ago before they revisted that credit card policy to students.
dont want to burst your bubble(or anyone elses) but obama is not and was not the power to the
throne it was michelle and val jar (aka beria) it was a long series of luck that got that krewe
anywhere near any real power mostly, it comes from the Univ of Chicago hopey changee thingee was
a nice piece of marketing by david axelrod..
the grey lady
5-11-2008
In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin
Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the
country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz
greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians.
Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known
in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to
walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year
later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard
than in the rough wards of Chicago politics.
But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States
senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on
a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer,
Mr. Obama was its grand marshal.
but to capture the arrogance of hyde park (read the last line)
A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion
of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington
had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy
black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s.
At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods
blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white
Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a
perfect fit.
"He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor
and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go
to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor."
also note how the lib racist grey lady can not bring themselves to name the parade it is the
bud billiken parade
peaceful, fun, successful
heaven forbid the world should see a giant event run by black folk that does not end in violence
might confuse the closet racists
There are enough examples of such things for it to be a reasonable expectation.
The parade also hasn't always gone without a hitch:
The 2003 parade featured B2K.[9] The concert was free with virtually unlimited space in
the park for viewing. However, the crowd became unruly causing the concert to be curtailed.
Over 40 attendees were taken to hospitals as a result of injuries in the violence, including
two teenagers who were shot.[38] At the 2014 parade, Two teenagers were shot after an altercation
involving a group of youths along the parade route near the 4200 block of King Drive around
12:30 pm.[39][40]
From the "self-drive get cars will exacerbate organ shortages" article, my first thought was
that it surely is a shame that fewer healthy vehicle drivers/passengers will end up as accident
victims, thus denying their delicious organs to the deathly ill. There must be something we can
do to rectify this impending catastrophe.
A few other ways out:
1) Flying cars will bring the injury rate back up.
2) Breeding program to make up the shortfall.
3) Proliferating superbugs will make surgery dangerous again, so that people won't want organ
transplants.
I agree, Tabbi in his Rolling Stone piece is now, finally, after his Trump induced psychosis,
back on form. Something about the Russian Story does stink. Summing up, if the Russians did steal
the election why the weak response now? Or is it just a good excuse for losing to Trump and/or
is Obama is trying to protect his legacy by delegitimizing Trump? Either way, Obama looks to be
underplaying or overplaying his hand.
I wonder if this is really Obama, who is out the door, talking or is the national security
state, who is not going anywhere? If it's the latter, then things start to make sense. It says
to me, they are not happy with the new direction in foreign policy that Trump represents. In fact,
they refuse to accept it and him.
How is this tension is resolved is the single most important question in the weeks ahead.
"The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like
Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by
a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.
"The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship
with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website."
'll leave you with some additional recent numbers on cyberintrusions, as reported by various
actors:
The energy company BP says it suffers 50,000 attempts cyberintrusion a day.
The Pentagon reports getting 10 million attempts a day.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, also records
10 million hacks a day.
The United Kingdom reports 120,000 cyberincidents a day.
That's almost as many as the state of Michigan deals with.
Utah says it faces 20 million attempts a day - up from 1 million a day two years ago.
=============================================================
WOW!!!! Seems like a really big F*cking deal!!!!
Kinda makes me wonder how many laws and regulations have been enacted forcing internet companies
and software companies to make their stuff more secure .
{{{{{{ In July 2012, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was proposed by Senators Joseph Lieberman
and Susan Collins.[15] The bill would have required creating voluntary "best practice standards"
for protection of key infrastructure from cyber attacks, which businesses would be encouraged
to adopt through incentives such as liability protection.[16] The bill was put to a vote in the
Senate but failed to pass.[17]}}}}}}
And of course (I don't want to over link so you have to look it up yourself) there are the
laws that ALLOW intrusion by the US government into your computer, of course makes computer systems
LESS SECURE .
So, almost makes me think Trump, OF ALL PEOPLE, was actually CORRECT when he said:
"I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made
it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things,
but I'm not sure we have the kind the security we need. But I have not spoken with the senators
and I will certainly will be over a period of time."
And how much the above is being mocked, by people without the presence of mind to ask, "how long,
and how many hacks have already occurred, and WHAT WAS DONE ABOUT IT?"
Hacking, that happens millions upon millions of times a year now for near a decade, but apparently
only a BIG F*CKING DEAL when an incompetent dem SAYS she has LOST the presidency due to hacking
.
The Russia hacking story goes back to early October with wiki leaks. Who is at fault for Trump?
Sherrod Brown, Senator of a state where Hillary lost and prominent Clinton supporter despite his
previous support for good policy, DWS, Tim Kaine, Donna Brazille, or Russians? Plenty of people
are invested in not being held accountable for 2000. The front runner for DNC chair is a Muslim,
Sanders supporter because even Democrats are growing upset, but one of the perks of Washington
is celebrity. My guess is going forward Dems will be under greater scrutiny and will find significantly
less brown nosers. Hillary is possibly the worst serious candidate ever. Emails and speeches aside,
she was a disaster with no business running for President after her prominent national career.
This was obvious to any sane and decent human being. The lesson of 2016 is even the "good Democrats"
such as Sherrod Brown and Liz Warren need short leashes. In 2020, all these people have to go
to Iowa (very close), New Hampshire (a blowout), and Nevada (openly rigged by former Senator Reid).
How does a candidate push their "progressive" credentials after throwing in with Hillary? Hillary
primary voters have the unfortunate age issue.
Then of course, there are people who don't want to believe they bought this bs when Hillary
should have been dumped ages ago.
The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or
hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it.
And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"?
Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say
that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm
pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was
not something they got her to do.
I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler.
I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people
in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things
blow up in our faces.
All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say.
Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers
mediocre.
How is this tension is resolved is the single most important question in the weeks ahead.
Sometimes the simplest "solutions" are the ones we never think of – Assassination of Trump
by the Deep State, the Blob, whatever you call it. But this may take more that just weeks ahead
to materialize if at all.
If you believe President Kennedy was killed by the Deep State (I'm agnostic on that due to
never researching it), and if Trump does deal with the bi-partisan War Party Deep State Blob elements
by standing them down as he did his Republican primary challengers and Apprentice guests . then
this may be the logical way to put an end to the threat Trump represents to the establishment.
And there is so much that is threaten by Trump of the established order.
Trillions of war armament purchase orders from NATO and the US military hinge in the balance
by continued US and NATO belligerence towards Russia. Add to that the gas pipeline thru Syria
that will be less likely to happen under Trump. The lost looting if no regime change in Russia
like we did in Ukraine – all that lost oil and natural resource the global elites will be denied.
All the lost military spending. The lost boogyman to instill fear for more surveillance of the
citizenry. The Deep State, Blob, War Party will be furious.
Yes, it is positive that he openly expresses skepticism in the current environment. But why
this?
If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive
response miles worse – than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes.
Leaking emails would require a 'massive response'? Has he seen Zero Days? What kind of response
would be appropriate for hacking a nuclear plant? Assassinating nuclear scientists? Is he aware
that we have 'hacked' elections for years? Not to mention overthrown legal governments.
And this:
I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election.
He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything.
Would Taibbi ever use similar language to describe Obama? So many in the media and other elite
circles are suffering from Putin Derangement Syndrome.
How many countries have Obama /Clinton attempted regime change to covert/direct interference
in elections/leadership? I would imagine the answer is far more than my quick list below. We couldn't
hack/leak internal emails among the players because our bloody hypocritical hands would be all
over them.
As for Russia if all they did was expose truths via party emails, well I thank them for that.
And considering what Clinton said and did to Russia over the years it would be irresponsible for
a Russian leader to sit by idly and do nothing. Even though we seem to be destroying ourselves
quite well enough on our own, we have and continue to threaten the rest of the world, beginning
with Russia with nuclear holocaust.
If Taibbi can call Putin all those things, then what the heck are Obama Clinton?
Ukraine
Russia
Syria
Venezuela
Honduras
Egypt
Yemen
Iraq
Palestinians
Libya
Paraguay
Turkey?
Brazil?
Argentina?
Thailand?
Hong Kong?
Taibbi has some personal journalistic history with previous Putin governments. It's understandable
that he'd cast side-eye Putin's way, though none too healthy in this deranged environment (just
wait until some corporate Dem tries to use him as a Surprising Validator). Let's keep Taibbi on
turn watch though.
It seems the need to celebrate some leader is less conntected to said leader's performance
than to some perceived need to be led, to believe that the very concept of hierarchy is just.
I do not understand this attitude at all. A writer who generally does good work says something
that I disagree with so I will never read them again. It's tantamount to saying I refuse to read
critically. I don't want to see anything I don't agree with 100%. It's petty.
It's true that the other annie has been posting comments on the site for a while, so it would
be less confusing if you were to modify your handle so that people can tell you two apart.
On the other hand, don't take any of the comments from people who were concerned personally
– obviously it's easy enough for two people to share the same name, and the software doesn't flag
when you are using a name that has been used before.
I heard a report that Lindsey McCain et al have armstwisted Trump into hearing the CIA report
on the Russian hack. What are they going to say? 'You won the election because of teh Russians!'
"Good gracious me! You're the CIA, find me out what his favorite liquor is so I can send him
a bottle!"
So they'll tell him to his face he wasn't competent to win the election himself? My guess is
says brief me again when I'm President, they walk in the door and he properly fires them. And
his face will be like
this .
"warrant" and "executing/capable of carrying out" are two different things.
As Putin has shown, Obama's capability threshold so low that it's rather moot to discuss
warrant. It's now up to Congress to do something magnificently stupid, violent and utterly
worthless, or rather worthy of the great American tradition.
And what on earth is the journalistic point of saying "I have no problem in believing something
for which there seems to be no credible evidence and which is being pushed by obvious partisan
interests?" I think Taibbi is 'normalising' fast.
I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for
me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh
Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad
for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted
by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop. Even if
the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First because Bush
pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but
still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the
Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course
domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away
fast enough.
Your position is obviously different.
And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.
Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism.
My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.
The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power
with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never
let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.
In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed
to be. Feint left, drive right.
With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.
Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people
here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments
section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)
Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive"
and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. At
the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted
for with them.
Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are
a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with
opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage
conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum;
"Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters
bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation
and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.
So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it. You
may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."
Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1
to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.
It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players
and too many styles. It's just not possible.
Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of
course.
I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive.
He's far from progressive.
I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly
brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.
My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for
which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's
not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.
Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have
performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for
sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.
The liberals have so much invested in Obama they can't bear to admit he's a backstabbing failure.
There is no sugar coating Bush's awfulness. There also is no denying things now are worse than
they were in 2007, before the Great Recession began. The liberals like to say things are better
than they were when Obama took office. But that's a comically low bar. Rock bottom of the Great
Recession. We have not recovered.
Obama isn't gaudy bad like Bush. Obama's pathologies are smoother, like his desperation for
establishment approval.
The liberals like to say that things are better than they were when Obama took office. Sorry
to share this tidbit, but I must:
On Friday, March 18, I was among the 7,000 people who heard Bernie Sanders speak at the Tucson
Convention Center Arena. Guess what he said.
And, to my utter and total amazement, the audience burst into applause. I couldn't believe
it. Much of Sanders' appeal was based on how lousy the economy still was for so many people. Including
Yours Truly.
My response to Sanders' praise of Obama's handling of the economy was a slow clap. A few minutes
later, I left the rally.
Of course it's acceptable. It's even important, vitally. But his height? I know I know it was
not really an ad hom, but why even mention it?
He fetishized making nice w the rethugs to our and the country's detriment. He had 2 years
to get something done. And honestly I have no idea if it would have been different w a less hostile
congress. My complaint is he didn't really try. Everything was half measures, pablum.
Far too generous. He did try to get Republican policies enacted. He wasn't a weak Democrat,
he was a driven Republican who was only thwarted by a comically, stupidly hostile GOP that sabotaged
things like the Grand Bargain/Great Betrayal because they had such a virulent hatred of the black
guy.
If Obama had enacted the agenda he ran on– even in part - the Democrats would not have lost
Congress in 2010. Obama's "only having two years" is thoroughly on himself and his party.
The site would be poorer and I would be sadder for the loss of your comments.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-30/can-this-political-union-be-saved
Shortly before I got married, I received a piece of sterling advice that I have been mulling a
lot over the last year: "You have a big decision to make: Do you want to be married, or do you
want to be right?"
.
The more determined you are to win every battle, the more likely you are to lose what's important:
the person you love so much that you have chosen to spend the rest of your life with them. And
so every time you have a real disagreement - the kind that cannot be finessed by agreeing that
tonight you'll order Indian, and next time you'll get Chinese - you have to think carefully before
you decide to have that fight. Is this really the hill that you're willing to let your marriage
die on?
..
While traveling a few months back, I ended up chatting with a divorce attorney, who observed that
what we're seeing in America right now bears a startling resemblance to what he sees happen with
many of his clients. They've lost sight of what they ever liked about each other; in fact, they've
even lost sight of their own self-interest. All they can see is their grievances, from annoying
habits to serious wrongs. The other party, of course, generally has their own set of grievances.
There is a sort of geometric progression of outrage, where whatever you do to the other side is
justified by whatever they did last. They, of course, offer similar justifications for their own
behavior.
======================================================
Every friend, every association we make, every relationship with a relative, every political entity
can be dissolved. One can insist one is correct on every matter, and live a long life with ever
fewer associations until maybe one has none at all.
As to which president is worse, your all wrong. Supposedly , 99 senators believe Russia hacked
us. Our country apparently is composed entirely of imbeciles without regard to race, creed, sex,
or party .
If you can't bear to encounter comments that contradict your political opinion then you should
probably also skip Thanksgiving dinner and other family get-togethers.
Whether you read the comments here is up to you, but I'd suggest continuing to visit for the
articles at least. You won't find the same level of analysis elsewhere. The MSM is heavily invested
in pushing their "narrative" whether or not it's true. I believe we have a duty as citizens to
seek out the best sources of information. NC is on that list.
If you can't bear to encounter comments that contradict your political opinion then you should
probably also skip Thanksgiving dinner and other family get-togethers.
I believe we have a duty as citizens to seek out the best sources of information, even if that
results in encountering opinions that are uncomfortable to us. NC is one of those sources. Whether
you read the comments here is up to you, but I'd suggest continuing to visit for the articles
at least. You won't find the same level of analysis elsewhere. The MSM is heavily invested in
pushing their "narrative" whether or not it's true.
The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or
hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it.
And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"?
Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say
that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm
pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was
not something they got her to do.
I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler.
I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people
in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things
blow up in our faces.
All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say.
Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers
mediocre.
You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few things Obamanation did:
1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President
ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared
by Congress.
2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal
and unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture,
and assassinate anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.
3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered
because of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief
in austerity helped defeat Clinton 2016.
I think the following quote summarizes the article and the writer's attitude toward those experiencing
this tragedy:
Conclusion:
For the group as a whole, there was only a 10% loss in income in November. However, the
impact on certain types of occupations was high, with income loss up to 44% among the self-employed.
Re Something About This Russia Story Stinks, I feel like Obama's weak response is a passive
aggressive way of telegraphing that he doesnt believe The Russians Did It either.
Since the NSA not the CIA would be the main actor involved with cyber security and Obama has
instructed the CIA to take action and noted his CIA reports, it's clear "OMG Russia" was always
red meat to help Hillary with Republicans. The problem is the Dems told such an incredulous lie
in early October many of their own voters and donors believed it because "Obama wouldn't make
something up."
Obama needs to do enough to soothe Democrats who believe this nonsense while not gaining the
ire of the sane. Obama will never utter the truth or do the right thing. Polling indicates his
Russian story isn't catching on. When Congressmen go home to their districts, they might not be
so eager to discuss Russia when they find the voters don't care Podesta's emails were leaked.
Certain Dems especially Clinton connected ones who swore Hillary was a tolerable candidate
and the msm after being in the tank for Hillary for so long are desperate to regain credibility.
Admitting the Russian story was an obvious sham means acknowledging complicity or being a mark.
See how easy it is. It's not my fault. It's the foreign leader you have no control over who was
at fault.
I think "Russia hacked the election" is a (seemingly pretty successful) psyop to inoculate
as many as they can against being willing to hear anything about charges for Hillary's basement
server State Dept. They're sweeping hacks and leaks of different types and kinds into one big
dust bunny and stuffing it under a rug misleadingly called "Russia hacked the election" - rather
than "Russia hacked Hillary's illegal basement server" which would of course be a big legal problem
for some people. Those people and their cadre don't want anyone saying that or even able to think
it. Squirrel!! FakeNews!! Resist!!
Obama knows he beat Hillary in 2008, when she was also expected to be crowned.
And he knows he beat her for the same reason Trump did: people wanted anyone who wasn't perceived
(emphasis on perceived) to be if the long time political establishment.
It's funny that no reporter, if they really nelieve this, has asked Obama how far back the
intelligence committe was investigating "Putin's interference". Russia knew both Clinton and McCain
had their hawkish sites set. The Clinton campaign was a leaky mess back then and no one once cried
"hacking."
Imagine the hilarity if it were true and Russia helped elect Obama.
I think you're right.
On the one hand, we are told to believe our intelligence agencies' assertions that Russia directly
influenced the results of our Presidential election - in other words, that they intentionally
subverted our democratic process (such as it is) in order to ensure the election of their preferred
candidate. That's pretty heavy stuff.
So what is the official U.S. response? We're gonna send some Russian folks home right before
Christmas really screw up their holiday plans!
Well played Obama - that will totally make them think twice before installing the next puppet
president.
I think "Russia hacked the election" is a (seemingly pretty successful) psyop to inoculate
as many as they can against being willing to hear anything about charges for Hillary's basement
server State Dept. They're sweeping hacks and leaks of different types and kinds into one big
dust bunny and stuffing it under a rug misleadingly called "Russia hacked the election" - rather
than "Russia hacked Hillary's illegal basement server" which would of course be a big legal problem
for some people. Those people and their cadre don't want anyone saying that or even able to think
it. Squirrel!! FakeNews!! Resist!!
Meanwhile, a number of IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published
by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone
a connection to the Russian government. Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting
websites running WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday.
Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently
funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be "made in Ukraine." The version tested by
the FBI/DHS report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool's website is
4.1.1b.
I can't read the Washington Post story because of the paywall, but here is what VTDigger has
to say about this story. While I didn't read the Post story, the difference in headlines is interesting.
VTDigger's headline is "Russians Penetrated Burlington Electric Department Computer" which seems
less alarmist than the Post's "Russian Operation Hacked a Vermont Utility, Showing Risk to U.S.
Electrical Grid Security, Officials Say."
Aside from the hysterical quote by our outgoing governor Peter Shumlin, the Vermont officials
seem fairly calm about the incident. I would also note that Shumlin's failure to keep his promise
on universal health care probably endangers more Vermont lives than the Russian hack attempt.
The govt released a report of "evidence" for the alleged DNC hacks. Arizona Slim at 9:30 am
here posted a link to a critique of this "evidence." Meanwhile, utilities and other entities started
checking their systems for similar "evidence." Burlington found an instance on a laptop unconnected
to the grid.
Here's a summary from
emptywheel – she's actually somewhat of a believer in a Russian DNC hack, but not in this
grid story.
The problem with the DNC hack story is "who cares?" The Democrats are a private organization*
with very poor cyber security as evidenced by Hillary's basement server.
Podesta was not a government official conducting government business. Hacking and releasing
his emails is simply not interfering with the election.
*They made this claim in the primaries. The Democratic Party is in no way part of the U.S,
government. They warrant as much attention as a local business as they don't receive defense contracts.
Do you remember the Chinese hack of USA! USA! USA! SECURITY CLEARANCES!!!!!!! TOP SECRET STUFF!!!!
Do you remember the uproar and all the consequences to China?
All the trade sanctions???
The Chinese import restrictions???
DEF CON superduper ONE or what ever number they use for top DEF CONS now a days
How the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war and total global annihilation because of this
ACT OF WAR????
Arms manufacturers have an interest. The Russia is too small and too distant to overwhelm most
countries outside of the Baltics and the Caucuses. The Chinese if they are let in can overwhelm
most countries through soft power. Why change U.S. shackles for Chinese ones? The Russians offer
many of the same weapon and tech options as the U.S. and China without the soft power threat of
being overwhelmed.
Part of the neoconservative rationale back in the day was the state of defense tech advancement
would neutralize our wunder weapons and soldiers on the ground would matter again. We needed to
block the Chinese and Russians by destroying or assimilating anyone who wasn't 100% loyal or could
move into the Moscow sphere or cut into profit margins. The neoliberals pushed the U.S. would
dominate free trade because the US. would run defense, tech, and finance. Russia and China are
threats to every neoliberal promise.
There was no "penetration of the U.S. electricity grid." The truth was undramatic and banal.
Burlington Electric, after receiving a Homeland Security notice sent to all U.S. utility companies
about the malware code found in the DNC system, searched all their computers and found the code
in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.
Apparently, the Post did not even bother to contact the company before running its wildly sensationalistic
claims, so they had to issue their own statement to the Burlington Free Press which debunked the
Post's central claim (emphasis in original): "We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric
Department laptop NOT connected to our organization's grid systems."
So the key scary claim of the Post story – that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric
grid – was false. All the alarmist tough-guy statements issued by political officials who believed
the Post's claim were based on fiction.
========================================
Thanks for that marym!
I guess – no, I now KNOW it was just idiotic of me and a naive and foolish belief in "progress"
that I thought people could no longer be manipulated, like Americans in the 50's with the Red
Scare. If anything, it seems the mechanism for ginning up mass hysteria is more effective now
than it was than .
If I may be permitted to comment on my comment, permit me to say this about my article link's
origin:
The writer of said article runs a company called WordFence. Its flagship product is a WordPress
plugin that protects websites against hacking.
If you ever get the opportunity to manage a WordPress-powered website that has WordFence among
its plugins, be forewarned. You are going to be a very busy site manager.
Why? Because you'll get frequent e-mailed admonitions from WordFence. Better update this plugin,
your WordPress installation, your website theme, or some combination of these things. Yeah, it's
annoying at times, but the good news is that WordFence is a very vigilant plugin.
So, heed those admonitions and do those updates. Now!
Wow that Putin guy is smart. Brokering a cease-fire in Syria and brushing off Obama in one
week. Forget the 11th dimensional chess, this guy's the real chess player. Really knows how to
make a countermove. His exposing our failed policies is really what's driving the heated anti-Russian
rhetoric by the political establishment, imo.
Katniss responded with a comment about it being harder to rewrite history if people were actually
aware of it. Really at a loss for words as to how people could do something like this. You'd think
these ISIS ass***es would revere the Assyrians, being fellow head choppers and all but instead
they raze the place.
The city of Nimrud in northern Iraq is in pieces, victim of the Islamic State group's fervor
to erase history. The remains of its palaces and temples, once lined in brilliant reliefs of
gods and kings, have been blown up. The statues of winged bulls that once guarded the site
are hacked to bits. Its towering ziggurat, or step pyramid, has been bulldozed.
Funny thing is most of the good stuff from these sites was pillaged by the Brits 150 years
ago and a lot of the best reliefs can be found scattered through small New England liberal arts
colleges. Always thought they should be repatriated. Love to see these slabs lowered back into
place in Iraq someday especially if there are some Bush era neocons and ISIS types underneath
them when it happens.
Remember the "bridge of death" scene near the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where
after seeing Knight #1 walk safely across the bridge after getting 3 really easy questions from
the bridge troll, Knight #2 excalims "that's easy!", rushes to the front of the queue, and after
getting 2 easy questions, is stumped by "what is the capital of Assyria?" Funnily enough, I actually
knew that one – Nineveh. Or thought I did, because doing a quick lookup just now I see Nineveh
was the oldest city in Assyria and its ancient capital until its destruction in 612 BC, but Nimrud
was an earlier capital, from 879–722 BC. So the correct answer is in fact, "it depends."
Is there an update on the demands from NC towards WP and associated liars about the fake news
stories?
Just saw a tweet mentioning the editorial WP added to their original stuff, but couldn't see an
update in any of the ~posts here on NC.
Can somebody please kill this fantasy that Clinton I was "eight years of peace and prosperity"?
For many of us, it was the beginning of 25 years of working harder and making less. And of
hacked government stats to make the economy look better than it actually was.
Clinton 1, the best repug in the dem party, gave us
1) Haiti – a failed state
2) telecommunications bill that has given us the 5 corporations that offer the worst lamestream
media in the industrial world that lies endlessly.
3) end of the safety net (welfare as we know it) for those with the least increase in corporate
welfare
4) Glass-Steagall and corruption on Wall Street and all white collar crime actually that goes
completely unpunished
5) continuation of massive, runaway inequality
6) Hillary Clinton
7) NAFTA
8) increase in childhood poverty
9) sick care insurance that doesn't cover anyone for healthcare at all
10) and he also provided privatized social security with Newt Gingrich but Monica (good for her)
intervened.
While making no excuses for the ineptitude of our current establishmentarian politicos, I think
many of the commenters on here who seem in awe of Putin's political savvy forget an important
point: He's an autocrat. Whatever the U.S.'s current political failings, there is still a generally
effective system of checks and balances. Putin, as an autocrat, does not face these challenges.
He is free to shape his statecraft as he pleases and to implement tactics at the drop of a hat.
Our political system does not (and lord help us under the trump regime - should not) enjoy this
luxury. Whether you feel like the hacking is a ginned up conspiracy or not, cozying up to an autocrat
like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations.
"Whether you feel like the hacking is a ginned up conspiracy or not, cozying up to an autocrat
like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."
But what about about an oligarchy?
Our "democracy" has been dead for awhile for anyone not in the top 10%. You can't really be
an "existential threat" to something that doesn't exist.
Thus my statement: "Whatever the U.S.'s current political failings, there is still a GENERALLY
effective system of checks and balances." And yes, it can (and most likely will) get worse, before
it gets better. I'm not blind to the US's frailties. However, I feel there is still a "chance"
that we can step back from the brink of utterly destroying this 200 year experiment in representative
democracy. The closer we step to abiding autocracy as a matter of course, though, the closer we
step to the brink of not being able to reverse the considerable mistakes we have made.
No one anywhere ever is an autocrat no king, no dictator, no president, no fearless leader
and certainly not raz-putin and no one has ever been that is a pedestrian image of what it takes
to run an enterprise not castro, not saddam, not mao, not stalin .no one
Your statement does not; however, negate my assertion. Putin's ability to maneuver politically
(within whatever system you'd like to call it) is substantially less hampered by checks and balances
than ours. Our absolute polarization in this country has opened the door for "autocraticish" world
leaders to seriously undermine our "admittedly weakened by oligarchic influences" system of representative
democracy.
Our checks and balances were designed to serve the oligarchy. For some reason, you don't seem
to have a problem with things that are unfit for purpose as long as they demand attention.
I address the first sentence of your reply alone, because the second makes no sense.
So great, it's always been an oligarchy. I've read Zinn. But since you append no solution,
am I left to believe that the solution is let Putin destroy said oligarchy and replace it with
autocracy? Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. But I get it. Some people
just want to see the world burn.
The world is not debate club and it is not a business. You are not entitled to a solution.
I believe it's arrogant of you to believe that you are.
What's more, you're not ready to overlap your solution space with that of the people. Like
I said, the world is not debate club. This is an attempt to meet minds, not to pray like a Pharisee.
Let's start with this principle: does human welfare "net out"?
Adding, I understand that "world burm" stuff is on today's meme list, as I've seen it in plenty
of comment boxes around the Web, so you can stop pretending you're not on assignment. I want to
watch liberals' world burn for their arrogance, and I defy you to tell me why they don't deserve
that or worse.
Forgive me Webstir, but isn't Russia a capitalist democracy? Doesn't the UN etc get to monitor
their elections? Putin gets voted in in the usual way. If that is a problem, then it is a problem
for 'Democracy' generally. And remind me, these "checks and balances" – is that the CIA versus
the FBI? Is it the the DOJ and financial crime? What is it?
I guess that comment was directed to one of mine. Sorry, but I was just trying to express how
inept Putin makes our war-mongering political establishment look (probably because they are) just
by making a few strategic moves. If that came across as "cozying up" to the man, well, you might
be reading too much into it. And the 11th dimensional chess remark was /sarc.
"Cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."
Huh!????? Not maintaining "amicable relations" with Putin and Russia is an existential threat
to ALL nations of the world.
And how is it cozying up to Putin to question the plainly false assertions by our Security
Industrial Complex or admire some clever but relatively straightforward responses to Obama's "retaliations"?
Do you believe the President of United States has no capacity to control and direct the actions
of the Executive Branch? The President has considerable autocratic power - little or not mitigated
by "checks and balances" - as the head of the Executive Branch of the United States.
"Cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."
Not maintaining "amicable relations" with Putin and Russia is an existential threat to ALL nations
of the world.
How is it cozying up to Putin to question the plainly false assertions by our Security Industrial
Complex or admire some clever but relatively straightforward responses to Obama's "retaliations"?
Do you believe the President of United States has no capacity to control and direct the actions
of the Executive Branch? The President has considerable autocratic power - little or not mitigated
by "checks and balances" - as the head of the Executive Branch of the United States.
Now, we can feel better about finishing of those bees, because we can bring always bring them
back later.
More enabling of Nature-abusing, should it become a part of cost-benefit analysis – the cost
of preserving a species, versus letting it die now and bringing it back 50 years later – because
we humans know exactly what we're doing. Having more options is always better.
In the mean time, get the award ready for another display of superior intelligence.
I don't disagree.
For me, teading the story brought up this segue:
The general appearance of the auroch bull is similar to the smaller Spanish fighting bull.
Which reminds me, there are several kinds of bull fighting. Portuguese bull fighting isn't featured
in movies but wow is it something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS4bGwA0QSc
Is Obama using Russia to force a wedge between Trump and his party? Guardian
Having compromised national security in order to defeat Hillary Clinton, the Republican leadership
may now see Trump as expendable. After all, he chose a standard rightwing Republican, the Indiana
governor, Mike Pence, as his running mate, which means McConnell and Ryan can always arrange to
have Trump impeached if he becomes too much trouble.
For Obama, Russia is thus a uniquely effective wedge issue, with the potential to divide the
president-elect from his party. If Trump tries to remove the new sanctions, he could face blowback
from Congress; if he doesn't, his friendly relationship with Putin could be damaged.
===================================================================
If Trump is truly not fervently anti Russian, than he was gonna have problems with the repubs
soon enough. As I commented yesterday, to me the issue is Trump strong enough to resist the many
and varied forms of persuasion that will be marshaled by the MIC and associated hangers on to
continue the very lucrative cold war funding.
I saw a retrospective on the Trump campaign, and the part where Trump got sat down and questioned
on abortion. Trump finally answered the question, "do you think women who have abortions should
be punished?"
Trump's answer of yes reveals two things to me:
1. Yes, of course he is a politician and gives an answer that he believes his base wants to hear.
It took him a while to learn the standard inconsistent but repub politically correct answer.
2. I doubt very much, to the extent Trump has "core beliefs" that Trump was against abortion.
But Trump, maybe more than most, will change to mollify the base.
Now, I don't think the repub base actually gives a rat's as* about spending money to contain
Russia, but I think the modern elites can sure make it seem like they do. I am hoping, but I doubt
Trump, has the backbone, skill, and intellect to really counter a sustained effort to keep us
at the status quo ante (i.e., keep us knee jerk anti Russian).
The question is: are there REALLY 99 senators who believe Russia hacked the election or same
difference, 99 who will vote that Russia hacked us?
And you know what that means? It means that we are governed in mass, by seriously incompetent
people with ideological blinders on – Trump is the least of our problems .
Fancy that, Harvard still has a "cold war center" with nitwits who sell this as "analysis"?
Mark Kramer, the program director for the Project on Cold War Studies at Harvard's Davis
Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, told Business Insider in an email Friday that Putin's
"conspicuous announcement today was intended in part to give the impression that Obama's measure
are weak and inconsequential (as indeed they largely are) and do not deserve a response."
"Putin can thus depict himself as taking the high road," Kramer added, "and undoubtedly
will be praised in European and Third World countries that are always eager to condemn the
United States."
If Trump is truly not fervently anti Russian, than he was gonna have problems with the repubs
soon enough.
========================================
I dunno. Mr. Trump, excuse me, President-Elect Trump, has a real gift for knowing what the
people want, or at least what they want to hear. And the R's are conditioned (by the Tea Part
et al) to fear their base. May it be that the Repubs (elites) will have problems with Trump? As
for the Demos, Demo-friendly pundits and the vast "left wing conspiracy", I keep having the feeling
that all this Putin-blaming stuff is because "Empress Hillary said so" and the DC/Demo-apparatus
does not dare (yet) pile on the Trump wagon. See what happens on Jan 21.
A correction to the OvaScience story-Jon Tilly is not at BU, he's been at Northeastern since
leaving MGH. I was in the little Center when that work was done(by colleagues/friends). There
were 3 groups that shared space.
A correction to the OvaScience story-Jon Tilly is not at BU, he's been at
Northeastern since leaving MGH . I was in the little Center when that work was done(by colleagues/friends).
There were 3 groups that shared space.
capacity by an estimated 250 million tonnes this year and to reduce the share of coal in its
energy mix to 62.6 percent by 2016. The country also intends to modernise its coal-fired power
plants by 2020 to reduce emissions of "major pollutants" by 60 percent and i s committed to
stabilising its CO2 emissions "around 2030 ". Environmental NGOs are nonetheless cautious,
worried in particular about the unbridled construction of new coal-fired power plants in China,
at the rate of almost two new projects per week in 2015 alone – even though there may ultimately
be little need for the extra capacity. (AFP)
Hacking and leaking; something one does when the flu is in town?
The government claims the Russians hacked something not connected to the internet and expect everyone
to believe it. All that is waiting now is the 200,000 IT specialists that could read the code
and would disagree.
this time, the big lie is going to be dispelled in every coffee shop, workplace and wifi hotspot
in the land. The IT folks are going to be asked by their friends and customers if it is true or
not, and it will all unravel.
Why would our government make claims so easy to demolish?
Why? Because they work. And once people act on them, it becomes almost impossible to get them
to admit they were hugely and publicly wrong. Propaganda and advertising are similar in that the
message doesn't have to make sense, it just has to achieve the intended result.
I don't share your faith in the power of facts to dispel beliefs that confirm cherished myths.
ISTM that beliefs, world views, come first, and "facts" are noticed, selected, and accepted relative
to their support thereof.
It's a fact that genocide of native Americans was official US policy. "The only good Indian
is a dead Indian." It's a fact that treaties were "negotiated" at gunpoint. It's a fact that we
broke them anyway. It's a fact that we stole millions of acres. It's a fact that we have no intention
of returning stolen property.
It's a fact that freedmen were promised "40 acres and a mule." It's a fact that that promise
is still unfulfilled.
It's a fact that the Tonkin Gulf "incident" did not happen as reported. Still, many, maybe
even most Americans believe we were attacked, and further, that we had to stop the dreaded "domino
effect."
It's a fact that the invasion of Iraq was based on lies. It was an illegal war of aggression.
And still is. Nevertheless, anyone who participates in uniform is a "hero." And anyone who reveals
exactly how effed up was our prosecution of that illegal war is, in "fact," a most scurrilous
villain. Just try defending Manning or Snowden to diehard American Exceptionalists.
It's a fact that US forces tortured people in black sites all over the world. It's a fact that
the Convention Against Torture demands investigation and prosecution. It's a fact that our constitutional
scholar-president looked "forward, not backward," putting our government in breach of the CAT.
Where are the impeachment proceedings for this high crime?
I could go on and on. It'd be nice if facts controlled politics. Fact is, beliefs do.
Unfortunately, you are exactly right. It seems humans are just hard wired to be cheerleaders
for their own team, tribe, country .beliefs come first, and than cherry picked facts, or facts
too good to check that support the beliefs.
I have said it a million times, I believe the most difficult thing for a human to do is admit
they were wrong about something.
Thanks, fd, glad you agree. I (almost ;) always enjoy your comments.
I'm not so sure "unfortunately" is the word I'd use, though. More like "naturally." I don't
regret being more belief-driven than data-driven. I think it's only natural. I think if people
were honest, they'd admit they are, too. Or am I supposed to think they're Mr. Data? That's what
makes us human, right? I think the mythological is a realm of human experience just as natural
as is the psychological.
It'd be nice if facts controlled politics. But first we'll have to come to a more universal
agreement as to exactly what world/universe/multiverse we're living in. I think it'd behoove us
to take into consideration the world views of those we oppose. We can't assume we're living in
the same world. ISTM we're often bringing facts to faith-based arguments. And that even we, who
have faith in the scientific method, make them, too.
All the data in the world won't move people unless it's in a narrative and/or symbolic form
that speaks to people directly, no thought required, like art does. Ask climate change scientists.
The scary thing is, as Red Scare 2.0 shows, or Trump's entire campaign, the opposite is true,
too. If you hit the right notes, it doesn't even have to make sense. Works almost as well as the
flashy thing (neuralizer) in Men In Black. Not because we're stupid "sheeple" (how I hate that
phrase!), but because we're "human, all too human."
PS: Regarding admitting mistakes. You won't mind, then, if I point out that you often use "than"
when I think you mean "then." I like it when others kindly point out my mistakes, so in that spirit.
there is an 'annie' commenting above on the taibbi piece who is not me! and does not express
my sentiments at all.
i'd thought that one's user name was sacrosanct here. i've been using 'annie' for many years on
n.c.
I was spoofed ONCE on this site – I was gonna change my moniker to the "realfresnodan" but
through sheer laziness, I never got around to it and it ?never? happened again. I don't know,
but I imagine software that verifies your address has to allow a different address or computer
at least once, otherwise one would have to change your moniker every time you bought a new computer
or changed your internet provider, etc.
Plus, when the new secret police come to get me, I will always have the defense, "its documented
that I am being spoofed!!!" I LOVE OBAMA/TRUMP/BUSH!!! – I can't decide who I love more!!!! (need
I say sarc?)
We'll look into the general issue. Of course deliberately impersonating another commenter isn't
okay, but sometimes two people take the same user name simply by accident.
Outis, is it possible to tweak the registration/post-processing setup so each commenter's profile
is stored as a unique UID/email-address pair, and someone attempting to use a UID already linked
to a different e-mail gets a "sorry, this userid is already taken" error message? Seems like a
pretty basic anti-spoofing measure for any halfway-decent comments system to support.
That will cause me problems, since my personal situation has me using three different devices,
no, five counting computers where I now only occasionally work, to participate here. But it's
not my space, so it goes. Protect the discourse. Besides, no one seems to think it worth spoofing
me .
If the proposed system included information about the device, it would be unworkable for precisely
the reason you mention. I can imagine a way to work around that, but it may or may not be feasible
- it will depend on the flexibility of the back end. I'll try to look into it.
From the multiple posts of the same msg by several people, I get the feeling that others are
having the same experience I am: I scribble, click "post comment," and then get a white screen
rather than a return to a posted, moderated or disappeared comment in the thread. I refresh the
page, which then warns me that "this comment has already been posted" on a white screen. I re-load
NC, search out my insert point, and maybe the note is there, maybe not. And if I pick the option
offered in a text box when refreshing from the white screen, to 're-send the form,' it usually
results in a multiple post of the same text. I have tried refreshing the screen and even re-booting,
same thing happens. Just offering my experience with the site lately. This started a couple of
days ago.
Even though I have weighed in, the truth is that who was worse for the country Obama or Bush
really won't be decided until more time has passed after Obama has left office. Think of it this
way, we didn't have a clear view of how many disastrous choices/decisions/terrible legislation
was part of the Clinton administration until years after he left. The full force of NAFTA hadn't
been felt, the devastation of Welfare Reform would only get deeper and deeper, and then there
was the repeal of Glass Steagall and the Gramm Bliley Leach atrocity that in reality has been
a leading component in the world wide Depression we are still dealing with (and with no FDR unfortunately
some of us are waiting for crash pt. 2). Just think how much worse it would have been if he hadn't
been impeached and got his entitlement reform. I have to give the Tea Party the Monica Lewinsky
Earned Benefit Savior Award for managing to derail Obama's multiple attempts at the same, but
similar to Bill it will merely be a "and it could have been worse foot note" to his history. But
whatever else the last three Presidents do have one thing in common all have ended their terms
with a lot of Americans, probably even most demanding change.
Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul, and while it is more likely that
Trump will just accelerate the descent this country has been on for over three decades that part
of me still sings that it might not be that way and sees chance for sanity and humanity to triumph
over greed, selfishness and corruption. Unlike Dickinson's my version was abashed for most of
the last six years, and it could become dormant and silent in even less time for Trump. But it
still exists, still beats and still sings and will again for Americans do not give up on change,
someday we will get it in the manner we really want.
" give the Tea Party the Monica Lewinsky Earned Benefit Savior Award "
THAT IS RICH!!!
hmmmmm .was the sloppiness of the fore mentioned young lady uh, hiding the evidencedue to her
being a repub "undercover" agent? Hmmmmmm ..
Seems to me it doesn't matter, except as a debating point or for bragging rights or tribal
supremacy, or other inconsequentialisms, which figurehead was "worse for the country. " Seems
to me there's not much of a "country" remaining. And from the standpoint of this one ordinary
person, GWB/BHO are just file tabs in the Rulers' great cabinet of horrors.
But may I offer the obligatory and mostly sincere traditional wishes to all here, that you
have a peaceful and kindly New Year!
Indeed, isn't the obsession with ranking a major driver of the emptiness of liberalism as the
game is played? It's learned, I'm certain; I'm as certain it can be unlearned, given stern enough
measures.
Coming back hours after I read it to say I love this comment, and I love the extention of the
Dickinson metaphor. Let us sing and beat our wings until the vibration cracks the bars on our
cage.
"Why is Mr. Trump so dismissive of Russia's dangerous behavior? Some say it is his lack of
experience in foreign policy, or an oft-stated admiration for strongmen, or naivete about Russian
intentions. But darker suspicions persist."
The editorial concluded by connecting the president-elect's "odd behavior" toward Russia with
his lack of transparency when it comes to his business empire.
"Are there loans or deals with Russian businesses or the state that were concealed during the
campaign? Are there hidden communications with Mr. Putin or his representatives?" The newspaper
speculated.
"We would be thrilled to see all the doubts dispelled, but Mr. Trump's odd behavior in the
face of a clear threat from Russia, matched by Mr. Putin's evident enthusiasm for the president-elect,
cannot be easily explained."
==========================================================
SO it begins ..
I was thinking my impeachment hypothesis was premature, given Trump hasn't even been sworn
in ..but now I don't think so.
The recording of the chant in the virtual Ayia Sofia embedded in the American Conservative
story is indeed beautiful. There has also been considerable speculation about the acoustics in
San Marco in Venice, which is also a modified Byzantine layout. One writer points out that more
than one choir was stationed in San Marco, so as to enhance the polyphony. I wonder if this was
the case in Ayia Sophia, with its gigantic galleries.
I was reminded of the importance of the tradition of chanting (no musical instruments) among
the Orthodox Christians and the Churches of the East. It is a distinctive tradition not much known
in the U S of A, where people like to make claims that unimportant splinter groups like the Seventh
Day Adventists have universal appeal. (But so much of "American religion" is so thoroughly parochial–and
we are sure to be treated to much much much more of its certainties in the Trump cabinet.) Ayia
Sofia, the church of the holy and divine wisdom is a cautionary tale about universal appeals,
as is its new, thoroughly iconoclatic decor.
Ayia Sofia is indeed a contraditory place, as the article notes. It is suffused with the Istanbul
melancholy that Orhan Pamuk describes. Not so far away, in the Fatih neighborhood, and higher
up, the Suleimaniye mosque (built by the Sinan the convert) also glows in contradictory splendor.
Taibbi making his serious journo bones?
"Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is even
reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas
tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll
find."
"He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything."
I realize the Crimea/Sudetenland parallel makes Putin out to be Hitler . . .
And 0bama to Chamberlain? Oh wait!
Taibbi making his serious journo bones? "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is
even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit
the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin
response as you'll find."
"He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything."
I realize the Crimea/Sudetenland parallel makes Putin out to be Hitler . . .
And 0bama to Chamberlain? Oh wait!
Taibbi making his serious journo bones? "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is
even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit
the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin
response as you'll find."
"He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything."
I realize the Crimea/Sudetenland parallel makes Putin out to be Hitler . . .
And 0bama to be Chamberlain? Oh wait!
I have a question for anyone who's been around a little while. Has political/media rhetoric
always been as inflated and over the top as it is now? ie Washpost calling Russian hacking "cyber
pearl harbor."
Is this old hat or something caused by the attention economy?
This is way worse than it used to be. There was something to be said for stodgy journalism.
Even when it misrepresented reality, it did so in terms that sounded comparatively measured and
adult, not like hysterical kids on a playground.
I agree – I have never seen journalism like this before. Have been watching a lot of MSNBC
and CNN during the past few weeks and I can't believe how over the top they are about the Russian
hacking story – it goes on for hours. And the papers too. Is it that it is a slow news period
and they have to keep their audiences shocked and awed all the time? I have no idea why this is
going on about the Russian hacking unless the media is trying very hard to change people's opinions
about Russia, and if they are, why? What's the objective? And the 99 senators too are in on this?
They make it sound very serious and yet it seems everyone is being hacked all the time anyway.
Good question Pespi. I don't know, but it seems worse to me. But its kinda like asking a fish
if its drier than it used to be – we live in a media world, and its not so much the answers they
give, but the questions they ask. I'm so old I remember when Obama MOCKED Ronmey for asserting
the Russians were a threat ..But no one asks Obama how the harmless Russkies became a threat on
his watch .
AND I am old enough to remember when the the press was considered leftish because of Vietnam
and cynicism about government pronouncements. So this belief by the press in the virtue of the
CIA is something that I have a tough time processing .
I offer my subjective opinion, not backed up by anything other than that I've been around for
4+ decades.
The level of brazenly open propagandizing is unprecedented. It was over the top through much
of the election cycle, and now it's gone completely off the rails. The credibility of a) the politicians,
b) the news agencies, and c) the 3 letter agencies behind the current balls-to-the-wall effort
is at risk of being completely destroyed. Apparently they think the stakes are that high that
they are all in on this.
I think it has to do with repealing the law that put some limits on the ability of the govt
to propagandize it's own people. Journalists now print whatever bs some anonymous official sends
them, no questions ask, or alternately sit on twitter.
You folks need to go back in time to the 18th and 19th and early 20th Centuries in America,
when political invective was both more colorful, vicious, and inventive than the fairly bland
Bernaysian sauce and tribal butt-baring and chest-thumping that's au courant.
RE: Russia Reaches Syria Cease-Fire Pact With Turkey- and the U.S. Had Nothing to Do With It
Why would Iran and Hezbollah go along with it? The only plausible answer I can think of is
that neither believe this cease fire will last. Already there are unconfirmed reports of renewed
jihadi-rebel in-fighting and hostilities between pro-government forces and the not-so-moderate
rebels.
Re: Brexit vote sparks rush of British Jews seeking Portuguese passports
Amusingly, Jews in Britain actually voted as a majority in favor of Brexit. Perhaps the press
is furthering anti-semitic stereotypes which claim that Jews seek internationalism and consolidation
of power at the expense of local governance? You might consider posting articles on this sensitive
subject which are more than just a description of an event followed by pointing and sputtering.
Linkage is not endorsement. It may be difficult for those that prize bourgeois loyalty and
tribal exceptionalism - you know, Americans - to understand, but there it is.
It's a big Internet, paid Democrat troII. There are many places for you to ply your trade where
you would be welcome.
RE: Russia's response to Obama 'is frankly the most damaging and embarrassing answer we could
receive'
I don't think Putin and Lavrov are playing good cop/bad cop. As per the rules of diplomacy
Lavrov expects to answer every tit with a retaliatory tat. Putin is different. His professional
experience is formerly of counter-intelligence. Which means he probably realizes what's happening
and Russia isn't the actual target in this propaganda war.
Consider the following
RE: Something About This Russia Story Stinks
Taibbi and his friends in the media are right. They have every reason to be worried. After
all they're the primary target in this propaganda war. It took me awhile to figure out what was
happening even though something seemed familiar after the Washington Post story about fake news
and the slandering of Naked Capitalism. I finally figured out why and the reason the CIA was taking
the lead in promoting the "Russia election hacks!" story. But then I remembered the stories about
the British Security Coordination (BSC)
The BSC didn't just recruit journalists or influence newspapers in it's operation to tilt public
opinion towards the Allied cause. They engaged in misinformation/disinformation campaigns against
people they perceived as their enemies; anti-New Dealers, isolationists, and right-wing Republicans.
They had sympathetic journalists plant false new stories in their papers that attempted to incite
legal action, death threats, and in at least one instance an eviction notice from the target's
home through intimidation of the landlord.
What the CIA is doing now reeks of the BSC. Up to and including inciting the country into a
war. After all the CIA's predecessor agency the OSS learned everything they knew at their feet.
inverted totalitarianism, or a police state, whatever you call America today, America is run
by the rich, for the rich and by the rich. Checks and Balances designed to "safeguard" Government
are working to insure the Rich keep their control.
Naivete/Willful Ignorance is such a frightening mindset. Watching others, who have no clue,
speak about how much better our Banana Republic (America) is, say, compared to Mother Russia's
version proves how well American have been "trained." American Exceptionalism! Because America!!!
scary, absolutely scary to see the endless displays of ignorance; no matter the cause, watching
the fruits of Fascism/Inverted Totalitarianism flow unchecked and unchallenged is not something
I can stomach. a wince here and an "oh no" there. the descent into Fascism is really awful. no
matter what you call it.
It isn't just apparent the parties have morphed, the base of the parties have also. It looks
like about the same number of Rs believed at one time O was born in Kenya as Ds believe Russia,
Russia, Russia took the win from their beloved oligarch Clinton (52%).
the future we leave for our children. Will they forgive us? Can we forgive ourselves? How'd
that hope and change work out? No worry, rump to the rescue! Happy New Year everyone! And thanks
to NC for all you do!
*I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to
yesterday's hastily written comment on the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment
can be attributed to my gullibility.
Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon
came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a
pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized
as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a
time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection
that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.
He died in the 1983 embassy bombing.
-The individual who was tortured and died soon afterward was Elias Nimr . A Christian intelligence
chieftain who appears to have played every side and angle he could during the Lebanon Civil
War.
-The name of the CIA contractor who tortured Nimr was identified as Keith "Captain Crunch"
Hall . He was originally identified by Mark Bowden in his book Road Work: Among Tyrants,
Heroes, Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) A former Marine before he joined the CIA and was later
a cop in California.
Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program
during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a
cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present
at the time Nimr died.
-Bob Baer neglects to mention this specific incident of torture in See No Evil
but doesn't blame Nimr for the bombing of the embassy. *cough* Appropriately titled book if
you ask me. *cough* A part of his theory on the masterminds behind the '83 embassy bombings
involves a former PLO turned Hezbollah operative named Imad Mughniyeh . Baer claims that Mughniyeh
is was still in contact with his old Fatah contacts when the embassy was bombed.
Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that
I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests
it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action.
-The name of the alleged defector from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was actually a deputy
defense minister and former brigadier general named Ali Reza Asgari . There was and still probably
is controversy whether he was kidnapped or defected. The Iranians wouldn't want it known that
such a high ranking defector went over to the West hence the kidnapping story.
Hah! Guess not posting much for a few months finally caught up with me.
Re: Canadian Hemisphere: I have always been ashamed of Canadian mining and resources extractors
who work in other countries, especially Latin America. Most Canadians think of themselves as fair
and judicious but that is not always true when it comes to mining in foreign countries. Canadian
mining companies have despoiled land, water and air while exploiting workers' human rights. It
is a depressing aspect of Canadian resource imperialism which is every bit as destructive as any
other "imperial" adventure.
inverted totalitarianism, or a police state, whatever you call America today, America is run
by the rich, for the rich and by the rich. Thanks to Congress, Republican and Democrats, Partners
in Crime. All those "Checks and Balances" designed to "safeguard" Government are working,for sure,
but now working to insure the Rich keep their control. The Republican and the Vichy Party/Democrats
make sure "Government" does whatever Business wants. Who need competition when you own The US
Government! not Capitalism!, that's for sure. or as i've heard, Capitalism can only be failed.
Like Conservatism. The age old scam of stealing from the Poor to give to the Rich.
Watching others, who offer platitudes, speak about how much better our Banana Republic (America)
is, say, compared to Mother Russia's version, proves how well Americans have been "trained." American
Exceptionalism! Because America!!! I know very little about Russia, but i know a lot more about
how we/Americans are being scammed. That is what Congress is for.
scary, absolutely scary to see the endless displays of ignorance; no matter the cause, watching
the fruits of Fascism/Inverted Totalitarianism flow unchecked and unchallenged is not something
I can stomach. a wince here and an "oh no" there. the descent into Fascism is really awful. no
matter what you call it.
of course, then again, i can see who is stealing what from whom, and it ain't pretty to watch
it go on, year after year. Thanks to Congress and the American Voter, we have reaped the whirlwind.
>The Virtual Hagia Sophia The American Conservative
"The sense of tragedy over the fate of the great cathedral is unlike anything I've ever felt."
Hahaha. Ahhhhh, Christians. "This giant Church being converted into a Mosque dedicated to the
same Abrahamic God is a great tragedy." Get over yourselves. It's a poncy over-enginereed shrine.
I'm rather partial to the Bagan Hindu temple complex in Myanmar/Burma, to the Buddhist temples
in Borobudur, Java,and to the Abu Simbel temples in southern Egypt. It's a pity the giant Buddhas
of Bamiyan, Afghanistan, are gone.
Let us state the obvious: None of these men are Roman Emperors, and they haven't got the wherewithal
to "blow up" anything but a stock market bubble. They are not Lex Luthors or Gandalfs or Stalins.
Their products do not bring about revolutions. They are simply robber barons, JP Morgans and Andrew
Mellons in mediocre T-shirts. I have no doubt that many are preternaturally intelligent, hardworking
people, and it is a shame that they have dedicated these talents to the mundane accumulation of
capital. But there is nothing remarkable about these men. The Pirates of Silicon Valley do not
have imperial ambitions. They have financial ones.
The vast majority of Silicon Valley startups, the sort that project lofty missions and managed
improbably lucrative IPOs despite never having graced the cover of The Economist or the frontal
cortex of the president, work precisely like any other kind of mundane sales operation in search
of a product: Underpaid cold-callers receive low wages and less job security in exchange for a
foosball table and the burden of growing a company as quickly as possible so that it can reach
a liquidation event. Owners and investors get rich. Managers stay comfortable. The employees get
hosed. None of this is particularly original. At least the real robber barons built the railroads.
==============================
Why IS Facebook, a not nearly as crappy email system, worth so much money?
Thats like asking why do intestinal parasites want to eat your sh*t? No, they want to eat YOU
.
Considering part of the original Cold War mania was devised to cover up the fact the US was
importing a slew of former Nazis for varied and sundry reasons, not to mention allowing them to
slip into hiding without any real effort made to find them, one does have to wonder at the coincidence
that we are now engaging in neo-Cold War rhetoric just as the "alt-right" neo-Nazis have been
granted dispensation to go public.
Of course, one could believe the idea that all those former Nazis were really just poor souls
who only worked for the Third Reich out of fear for their families and were, therefore, only too
happy to embrace the joys of American freedom. One could, were it not for the other coincidence
that similar fascist organizations have arisen almost simultaneously to public attention throughout
Europe.
But never mind. That's tinfoil-hat stuff. We trounced all that Nazi scum, and besides most
of the people weren't really Nazis and didn't believe all that stuff. Right?
(to beat this dead horse a little more)
Taibbi making his serious journo bones? "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is
even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit
the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin
response as you'll find."
"He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything."
I realize the Crimea/Sudetenland parallel makes Putin out to be Hitler . . .
And 0bama to be Chamberlain? Oh wait!
sorry about multiple posts, I kept getting a screen that NC page wasn't working, and remembered
about the site update finally
don't think my comment was that wonderful, and happy new year
o "Why Google co-founder Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars | Vox" - Because haedlines
about such squillionaire "thought leader" pipe dreams keep his name in the news and help to goose
Google's share price? Nah, that couldn't be it
o "Self-Driving Cars Will Make Organ Shortages Even Worse | Slashdot (Chuck L)" - Because they'll
kill off all the bicyclists in Year 1, leading to a donor-organ boom/bust?
o "Scientists edge closer to bringing back from the dead the fabled aurochs, giant wild cattle
that once roamed Europe's forests | Telegraph" - Without a roamable forest for the critters to
live in, what's the point - more animal cruelty?
AVs and people will have to be kept separate once the market has benefited from the needed
short term boom in organs. AVs can't even handle fixed red lights let alone moving objects. Perhaps
pedestrian overpasses or simply ban cars on every fourth street and designate to bikes and pedestrians.
Profit! There will be a market for aurochs . canned hunting expeditions on private property
and niche meat like they do with bison provided they don't carry brucellosis
.
They gotta foam the roadway, man. Set quotas and stuff like that. And, hey, when it's time
for David Rockefeller to get heart #11, he can just Uber it.
"... For any American leader, an attempt to subvert U.S. democracy ought to be unforgivable - even if he is the intended beneficiary. Some years ago, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor," and the fear at the time was of a cyberattack collapsing electric grids or crashing financial markets. Now we have a real cyber-Pearl Harbor, though not one that was anticipated. ..."
"... Pearl Harbor was followed by the U.S. entry into a world war. Do the editors want to repeat that when alluding to it? ..."
"... I suspect that the pushing of the Vermont hack was also an attempted hit against Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont who was scammed out of the Democratic candidacy by the Clinton aligned Democratic National Council. He would now either have to jump on the "Russian hacking->bad Putin->bad-Trump" train or could be blamed of pro-Russian, pro-Putin and pro-Trump tendencies. All such tendencies are of course bad in the view of the pseudo-liberal Washington establishment which is busy promoting the New Red Scare . ..."
"... But back to that malware. DHS and FBI had published a " report " (pdf) which again attempted to blame Russia of hacking the Democratic National Council while again providing zero actual evidence of such a hack (hint: there is none). The 13 pages include 2 with amateur graphics of a trivial hack architecture and 7 with amateur advice on how to protect a network. Of interest in it were samples and checksums of moduls of the hacking software it attributed to Russia and a list of IP addresses through which it claims the DNC hack was made. Of special interest is also what it does not say . ..."
"... The whole bogus "Russian hacking" and "Putin did it" claims are issued to lock the coming President Trump into an anti-Russian position. Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations. That again would mean lower advertisement income for the Washington Post and less money for its staff, editors and owner. ..."
"... These people would rather have Word War III than to endure that. ..."
"... b, 'Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations. ...' ..."
"... so they have decided to preemptively make their own 'imminent threat' claims less plausible by endlessly crying 'wolf! wolf!' themselves when there is no wolf. the neo-con brain trust ... idiots and fools. this all goes hand in hand with obama's childish dismissal of the russians in new york and maryland, and appears as foolish as did obama himself in the light of putin's disdain for the lamest of lame ducks who cannot simply learn to lose. ..."
"... tee-rump's reply to putin's exercise of restraint together with his previous allusion ... these are the same guys who brought us wmds and the shocking, awful wars in afghanistan, iraq, libya, ukraine and syria ... have shown that he is not affected by their bluff ... that he knows he has the support of the fossil-fuelers, at least, probably of the financiers as well ..."
"... the neo-con hyperventilation ... including that of bibi netanyahoo ... betrays their recognition of their own collapse. the thousand year reich lasted 9 years, the plan for a new american century lasted 15 ... good riddance to bad rubbish, as we used to say in the schoolyard as children, for that's the level the bezos' blog and the neo-cons shrieking behind the curtain. ..."
"... while just 14% of their self-identifying republicrats - the new, majority party in the us federal government - take the overall 'the russians are coming' scam seriously, fully 50% of those self-identifying as demoblicans - the new, minority party in the us federal government - do so. ..."
"... VP Pence is a friend of McCain's, supports Syrian 'no-fly' zones, and supports the TPP (aka "Obamatrade"). He voted for the Iraq War and agreed with Hillary's deposing Qaddafi. ..."
"... that certainly paints a target on tee-rump's back, doesn't it? tee-rump really needs to kill the cia in the pale afternoon of 20 january 2017, or they'll surely kill him! ..."
"... "It is therefore inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows . . ." ..."
"... It must be a job to continue debunking the childish lies of Barack Obama and his gang of ineptitude officials. It is unfortunately that human beings are dumb, otherwise there would have been no need to respond to the stream of idiotic pronouncements of the White House and the Anglo American mainstream media. ..."
"... I predict that Barack Obama and his wife will check into therapy as soon as they remove their baggage from the White House. Crooked Clintons seem to have got a lock on them, so they are ready to leave office in disgrace just to please the disgraceful Clinton family. ..."
"... Now let's have some more holier-than-thou talk from WaPo and NYT about "fake news" on the internet. The WaPo has become a cess-pool of lies and misinformation ever since Bezos took it over and started turning it into a tabloid. ..."
"... Sen. John McCain said Friday that Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election amounted to an "act of war." The Arizona Republican, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also has scheduled a hearing for next week on foreign cyberthreats to the US, which will also focus on Russian cyberhacking, a committee aide told CNN earlier Friday. McCain, who is one of Washington's most prominent foreign policy hardliners, has criticized the recent sanctions and expulsions announced by the Obama administration this week as insufficient and belated. He made his latest comments in Ukraine, a nation threatened by a resurgent Russia, after meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. ..."
"... Obama isn't a dingbat. He is devious. ..."
"... I kept insisting that the DNC hacking was a False Flag, and idem on this one; but keep on guessing who's behind it. I expect there will be yet more False Flags to move the U.S. in the right direction. ..."
"... Obama went berserk, he went insane showed himself as a puny vindictive partisan weasel not worthy presidency in the first place regardless of his murderous and imperial policies and utter submission to Wall Street thieves, with despicable character that shows itself in his childlike temper tantrum rants unworthy of any federal employee not to mention POTUS. ..."
"... Once, in less insane times, had some government been found to have tampered with elections, the heads of the agencies responsible for protecting against that would now be testifying before Congress and trying to explain how they let that happen. ..."
"... Some of the officials would resign in disgrace, some would no doubt have been found to have lied and to have tried to cover up their incompetence, and probably at least someone would have gone to jail. ..."
"... These stories reflect the demonize Russia as the latest enemy and throw as much "evidence" at the wall that will stick. ..."
All recent claims of "Russian hacking" are either outright false or are based on "evidence" that
only shows run-of-the-mill attacks by some anonymous basement hacker.
The year 2016 saw the person elected U.S. president who Jeff Bezos' propaganda rag, the Washington
Post, hated most. To celebrate the end of this very bad year its writers and editors decided to put
more egg on their faces. It first published the piece promoted
on the left
and some three hours later the fundamentally "corrected" one
on the right
.
The claim in the first piece, based on anonymous "officials", was that Russia hacked into the
U.S. electricity grid through a utility company in Vermont. But then the utility companies in question,
Burlington Electric, issued a
statement that a recent scan of its IT systems had found only one laptop with some malware and
that the laptop in questions was not connected to its networks at all. There was nothing found on
any net-connected system. It had reported the find to the federal U.S. government. (Some very shortsighted
"officials" immediately abused the confidential company information to miss-inform the Washington
Post.) The utility company found the malware by scanning for a malware signature published in a lame
recent assessment by Homeland Security and the FBI.
Dubious claims of foreign hacking of the electricity grid have already been made
in 2009 . Its an old
trick of the Obama administration to achieve some political aims. The Washington Post was obviously
so eager to publish another of its daily "Russian hacking" fakes that it did not even ask the two
Vermont utilities in question before pushing the stenographed piece out of the door. That may well
have been because the lead editorial of that day was warning of Putin hacking the U.S. electricity
network and (again) hitting at Trump:
For any American leader, an attempt to subvert U.S. democracy ought to be unforgivable - even
if he is the intended beneficiary. Some years ago, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned
of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor," and the fear at the time was of a cyberattack collapsing electric grids
or crashing financial markets. Now we have a real cyber-Pearl Harbor, though not one that was
anticipated.
Pearl Harbor was followed by the U.S. entry into a world war. Do the editors want to repeat
that when alluding to it?
The editorial also pushed a bunch of wholly invented conspiracy theories:
Why is Mr. Trump so dismissive of Russia's dangerous behavior? Some say it is his lack of experience
in foreign policy, or an oft-stated admiration for strongmen, or naivete about Russian intentions.
But darker suspicions persist. Mr. Trump has steadfastly refused to be transparent about his multibillion-dollar
business empire. Are there loans or deals with Russian businesses or the state that were concealed
during the campaign? Are there hidden communications with Mr. Putin or his representatives? We
would be thrilled to see all the doubts dispelled, but Mr. Trump's odd behavior in the face of
a clear threat from Russia , matched by Mr. Putin's evident enthusiasm for the president-elect,
cannot be easily explained .
During the election campaign WaPo was the news paper with the most anti-Trump screeds on its neoconned
editorial page. That actually helped Trump by making him the obvious anti-Neocon candidate. But "Pearl
Harbor" comparisons and "darker suspicions" beat even the most stupid earlier pieces on him.
I suspect that the pushing of the Vermont hack was also an attempted hit against Bernie Sanders,
the Senator from Vermont who was scammed out of the Democratic candidacy by the Clinton aligned Democratic
National Council. He would now either have to jump on the "Russian hacking->bad Putin->bad-Trump"
train or could be blamed of pro-Russian, pro-Putin and pro-Trump tendencies. All such tendencies
are of course bad in the view of the pseudo-liberal Washington establishment which is busy promoting
the New
Red Scare .
But back to that malware. DHS and FBI had published a "
report " (pdf) which again attempted to blame Russia of hacking the Democratic National Council
while again providing zero actual evidence of such a hack (hint: there is none). The 13 pages include
2 with amateur graphics of a trivial hack architecture and 7 with amateur advice on how to protect
a network. Of interest in it were samples and checksums of moduls of the hacking software it attributed
to Russia and a list of IP addresses through which it claims the DNC hack was made. Of special interest
is also what
it does not say .
The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia.
But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide
range of other malicious actors , especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.
The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian . It has no apparent relationship
with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website.
There is your "Russian hack" the DHS and FBI claim hit the DNC servers and WaPo falsely claimed
hit the U.S. electricity grid. A run-of-the-mill hack through freely available servers with old Ukrainian
malware just like the hundred-thousand others that happen each day.
... ... ...
But if you, like me, believe the word of former British ambassador Craig Murray who works with
Wikileaks, there was no hack at all. The DNC data came
via an insider who had direct access to them. They were handed to Craig for publishing by Wikileaks.
The whole bogus "Russian hacking" and "Putin did it" claims are issued to lock the coming
President Trump into an anti-Russian position. Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat"
claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry
and government organizations. That again would mean lower advertisement income for the Washington
Post and less money for its staff, editors and owner.
These people would rather have Word War III than to endure that.
There really are no words for the stupidity, small-mindedness, and mendacity of the Washington
Post, NYT, and CNN (to name but three of the hacks that report on behalf of the powers-that-be)
these days. I mean, they were always bad but they are continually striking new lows as if they
were the inverse of the US stock market.
Exit Obama in a Cloud of Disillusion, Delusion and Deceit 100
31 Dec, 2016 in Uncategorized by craig
I had promised myself and my family that on this holiday I would do nothing but relax. However
events have overtaken my good intentions. I find myself in the unusual position of having twice
been in a position to know directly that governments were lying in globe-shaking events, firstly
Iraqi WMD and now the "Russian hacks".
Anybody who believes the latest report issued by Obama as "proof" provides anything of the
sort is very easily impressed by some entirely meaningless diagrams. William Binney, who was Technical
Director at the NSA and actually designed their surveillance capabilities, has advised me by email.
It is plain from the report itself that the Russian groups discussed have been under targeted
NSA surveillance for a period longer than the timeframe for the DNC and Podesta leaks. It is therefore
inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows and
they would be saved. In other words, the NSA would have the actual hack on record, would be able
to recognise the emails themselves and tell you exactly the second the transmission or transmissions
took place and how they were routed. They would be able to give you date, time and IP addresses.
In fact, not only do they produce no evidence of this kind, they do not even claim to have this
kind of definite evidence.
Secondly, Bill points out that WikiLeaks is in itself a top priority target and any transmission
to WikiLeaks or any of its major operatives would be tracked, captured and saved by NSA as a matter
of routine. The exact route and date of the transmission or transmissions of the particular emails
to WikiLeaks would be available. In fact, not only does the report not make this information available,
it makes no claim at all to know anything about how the information was got to WikiLeaks.
Of course Russian hackers exist. They attack this blog pretty well continually – as do hackers
from the USA and many other countries. Of course there have been attempted Russian hacks of the
DNC. But the report gives no evidence at all of the alleged successful hack that transmitted these
particular emails, nor any evidence of the connection between the hackers and the Russian government,
let alone Putin.
There could be no evidence because in reality these were leaks, not hacks. The report is, frankly,
a pile of complete and utter dross. To base grave accusations of election hacking on this report
is ludicrous. Obama has been a severe disappointment to all progressive thinkers in virtually
every possible way. He now goes out of power with absolutely no grace and in a storm of delusion
and deceit. His purpose is apparently to weaken Trump politically, but to achieve that at the
expense of heightening tensions with Russia to Cold War levels, is shameful. The very pettiness
of Obama's tongue out to Putin – minor sanctions and expelling some diplomatic families – itself
shows that Obama is lying about the pretext. If he really believed that Russia had "hacked the
election", surely that would require a much less feeble response. By refusing to retaliate, Russia
has shown the kind of polish that eludes Obama as he takes his empty charisma and presentational
skills into a no doubt lucrative future in the private sector.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/exit-obama-cloud-disillusion-delusion-deceit/comment-page-1/#comments
b, 'Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets
and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations.
...'
so they have decided to preemptively make their own 'imminent threat' claims less plausible
by endlessly crying 'wolf! wolf!' themselves when there is no wolf. the neo-con brain trust ...
idiots and fools. this all goes hand in hand with obama's childish dismissal of the russians in
new york and maryland, and appears as foolish as did obama himself in the light of putin's disdain
for the lamest of lame ducks who cannot simply learn to lose.
tee-rump's reply to putin's exercise of restraint together with his previous allusion ...
these are the same guys who brought us wmds and the shocking, awful wars in afghanistan, iraq,
libya, ukraine and syria ... have shown that he is not affected by their bluff ... that he knows
he has the support of the fossil-fuelers, at least, probably of the financiers as well, two
out of three of the f*ked up f's, against the fusiliers.
the neo-con hyperventilation ... including that of bibi netanyahoo ... betrays their recognition
of their own collapse. the thousand year reich lasted 9 years, the plan for a new american century
lasted 15 ... good riddance to bad rubbish, as we used to say in the schoolyard as children, for
that's the level the bezos' blog and the neo-cons shrieking behind the curtain.
may 2017 be the year of their abject collapse and may they all, including especially their
nobel peace prize laureate, live forever in infamy.
the vermont utility scam is just that. the
last link within
that quoted above points to
a
graphic from
politico that is very informative : while just 14% of their self-identifying republicrats
- the new, majority party in the us federal government - take the overall 'the russians are coming'
scam seriously, fully 50% of those self-identifying as demoblicans - the new, minority party in
the us federal government - do so. in other words, only the scammers themselves claim to
'believe' their own scam.
the tnc msm : sound and fury signifying nothing. officially.
3) "Boxing in" the Trump Administration? (spoiling the supposed Trump-Putin love fest)
4) Another ploy to unseat Trump? Does trumped-up conflict with Russia mean that the
supposed Trump-Putin love fest causes an inability to discharge office of President as per
the
25th Amendment ?
5) All of the above?
6) Something else?
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Note:VP Pence is a friend of McCain's, supports Syrian 'no-fly' zones, and supports
the TPP (aka "Obamatrade"). He voted for the Iraq War and agreed with Hillary's deposing Qaddafi.
@11 jr, 'VP Pence is a friend of McCain's, supports Syrian 'no-fly' zones, and supports the TPP
(aka "Obamatrade"). He voted for the Iraq War and agreed with Hillary's deposing Qaddafi.'
that certainly paints a target on tee-rump's back, doesn't it? tee-rump really needs to
kill the cia in the pale afternoon of 20 january 2017, or they'll surely kill him!
let us hope that we can all soon stand over the cia's collective graves till we're sure that
they're dead.
the demoblicans and the tnc msm : the new minority making great sounds and demonstrating great
fury yet eating their own dog food and signifying nothing.
sorry, due to your unconventional posting style i had thought it was yourself and not craig
murray who was in contact with william blinney. i see my error now.
The faked news phenom is IMO the result of the US higher education culture finally producing the
critical mass of self-entitled narcissistic punks to flood the airwaves with "useful" tripe. Put
profit before performance and this is what you get. The only thing I use print media for is lining
rabbit cages.
May the new year be safe and prosperous for fellow bar-dwellers and friends. Bottoms up.
The Guardian is continuing with the claims that Russia is responsible for the malware found
in that laptop by adding a little detail that the malware contained code used by the Russians.
They do at least tell the reader that the laptop was not connected to the grid.
This anti-Russian propaganda is getting more extreme by the day. greenwald is collecting many
examples on his twitter feed.
Happy New Year to all. It must be a job to continue debunking the childish lies of Barack
Obama and his gang of ineptitude officials. It is unfortunately that human beings are dumb, otherwise
there would have been no need to respond to the stream of idiotic pronouncements of the White
House and the Anglo American mainstream media.
I predict that Barack Obama and his wife will check into therapy as soon as they remove
their baggage from the White House. Crooked Clintons seem to have got a lock on them, so they
are ready to leave office in disgrace just to please the disgraceful Clinton family.
The WaPo's deceit on this story can't be over-emphasized. The original report by Juliet Eilperin
and Adam Entous was dated Dec30. Then their lies about hacking the grid were exposed and they
re-wrote the article.
The WaPo did not just publish a correction with an update date, they republished the article
under the new headline and under a new date, Dec31. At the bottom of the current article there
is an editor's note referring to an "earlier version" of the article and acknowledging the lie
about penetrating the grid. But the significance of the re-write is not obvious from the editor's
note or the new headline. Compare the second paragraphs of each version, for instance.
Now let's have some more holier-than-thou talk from WaPo and NYT about "fake news" on the
internet. The WaPo has become a cess-pool of lies and misinformation ever since Bezos took it
over and started turning it into a tabloid.
Sen. John McCain said Friday that Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election
amounted to an "act of war."
The Arizona Republican, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also has
scheduled a hearing for next week on foreign cyberthreats to the US, which will also focus
on Russian cyberhacking, a committee aide told CNN earlier Friday.
McCain, who is one of Washington's most prominent foreign policy hardliners, has criticized
the recent sanctions and expulsions announced by the Obama administration this week as insufficient
and belated. He made his latest comments in Ukraine, a nation threatened by a resurgent Russia,
after meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
I kept insisting that the DNC hacking was a False Flag, and idem on this one; but keep on
guessing who's behind it. I expect there will be yet more False Flags to move the U.S. in the
right direction.
Back door to war ... the way Roosevelt got us into WWII ... along with a whole string of alleged
attacks on the most aggressive and hate filled empire the world has ever known. The Kahns of central
Asia, the Romans at their most vicious, could have learned a lot of pure nastiness from the long
string of American 'wars for empire' going from the New England and Virginia plantations to the
present.
We hack, that is good. They (might have) hacked, that is bad. Sick ...
Obama went berserk, he went insane showed himself as a puny vindictive partisan weasel not
worthy presidency in the first place regardless of his murderous and imperial policies and utter
submission to Wall Street thieves, with despicable character that shows itself in his childlike
temper tantrum rants unworthy of any federal employee not to mention POTUS.
I, as a harsh critic of Trump incoherent style must admit that Obama's abhorrent behavior made
Trump look like statesman.
Obama unnecessarily, senselessly, horribly embarrassed the office of POTUS and destroyed any
chance for another African American to be near the WH for another century. And what for?
For sore looser claims that elections were rigged against Hillary because of Podesta email
hack? That's the nonsense, the only document rigging attempt was DHS in few states.
People must understand that any information could influence a voter but as long it is true
it is legal and acceptable element of electoral process. It is an act of due influence performed
by all candidates themselves, their campaigns as well as supporting special interests, investigative
journalists and independent bloggers who work to reveal true picture of a candidate in relation
to their qualifications, skills, experience and moral values that would inform his/her choices
in office.
Only proliferated lies may be construed as "unduly" influencing public but only if not countered
by the publishing the truth and evidence for it.
Podesta emails told the truth about Hillary and her insidious or even illegal manipulation
of the primaries and her attitude of entitlement informed by her imperial hubris and likely illegal
money manipulation. So told the truth disclosed of Trump scandals with Trump University or sexual
harassment or bankruptcies.
And for that reason alone [the truth in Podesta emails] there could be no connection between
elections outcome and alleged Russia hacks.
Hacks themselves even if true but no evidence presented as of yet, would have been a minor
episode, worth of a brief headline especially when it is US and Israel who are real cyber aggressors.
Once, in less insane times, had some government been found to have tampered with elections,
the heads of the agencies responsible for protecting against that would now be testifying before
Congress and trying to explain how they let that happen.
Some of the officials would resign in disgrace, some would no doubt have been found to
have lied and to have tried to cover up their incompetence, and probably at least someone would
have gone to jail.
That the U.S. is helpless in the face for foreign technology that information would be
kept top secret while a huge effort would be initiated to catch up. The vulnerability would not
be broadcast, you can be sure.
Probably nowhere has critical thinking been more effectively stamped out than in the American
public. Gradually, however -- I think -- people in the U.S. are slowly beginning to awake from
their comfortable stupor.
The alleged Russian US hack is plainly a straw man distraction designed to divert the inquiring
public.s attention away from the actual contents of the KKKLinton, DNC, Podesta, et al, emails.
Same goes for the alleged Russian hacking of the US Presidential Election. Another childish misdirection
play.
Alternate medias have taken the bait hook, line unt sinker. Rather than concentrate on the
actual contents of the emails which reveal immense crimes including war crimes, crimes against
humanity and Treason the so called independent medias waste their time like dogs chasing their
own tails pursing information that to a computer literate audience would find laughable. THERE
WAS NO HACK OF THE GRID.
Get on to the publishing and dissemination of these emails rather than dancing for the self
appointed 'Chess Masters' of the Great Game.
Great post B. MSM born #Fakenews is the gift that just keeps on giving. So much mileage left.
Viewing decay has never been so enjoyable.
@8 mauisurfer
Fantastic reading. Indeed, if Trump wants to win back public faith in the NSA, he'll get on his
hands and knees and grovel to bring back a true yank patriot in Binney
Amid the cornucopia of persuasive evidence that the barking mad neocons are barking up the wrong
tree, this one pushes all the right buttons for me (given that only idiots allow themselves to
think that Russians are incompetent fools).
John McAfee (now often nutty but right in this):
"If it looks like the Russians did it I can guarantee you it wasn't the Russians".
>>>> CHRISTINNE RADU | Dec 31, 2016 6:12:33 PM | 32
The Daily Mail featured on the
World at One on the BBC
today starting at about 23:28 in.
There is also a snippet at 16:10 about ISIS's avowed aim the break up the EU. Which is more important
to the US? A stable EU or pushing regime change in Moscow. Putin has made it very clear that he
wants a stable EU. So what's the problem?
These stories reflect the demonize Russia as the latest enemy and throw as much "evidence"
at the wall that will stick.
However, it is obvious that the operating systems are not secure and cybersecurity efforts
are not working.
While it looks like the DNC/email thing is the result of leaks not hacks and that Seth Rich
may have been murdered for this, the reality is that govt/banking/businesses have endangered us
by making our information vulnerable and then blaming those who get in when they leave the door
open.
After the OPM data thefts, I asked my congressmen why such important data was put on the internet
when they know they cannot protect it. I received form letters saying they took cybersecurity
seriously and they believe the Chinese did it.
A non-answer if ever there was one. Back then I didn't care if a govt went after Microsoft
as a monopoly when it should go after it for providing vulnerable systems to the govt (and the
rest of us) in the first place.
In the internet's startups and non-profits, security was not taken as seriously as just getting
some kind of system to work.
"In the late 1990s, when the utilities' vulnerabilities first came to light, Richard Clarke,
then the White House counterterrorism chief, proposed imposing mandatory cybersecurity requirements
on all industries connected to critical infrastructure. The companies lobbied against his plan,
as did President Bill Clinton's economic advisers, who warned that the measures would cripple
these companies' competitiveness in the global market. Clarke also suggested putting the government
and critical-infrastructure industries on a parallel internet, which would be wired to certain
agencies that could detect intrusions. This plan was leaked and denounced as 'Orwellian.'"
This current accusation of Russians hacking US utilities may be so much BS and propaganda.
But the US/Israeli STUXNET attack on Iran proved that some things should be protected.
wow, friendly relations with other countries and potential business interests are bad? and would
lead to a flaky electric grid in Vermont... because... ??
our electric grids suck because of the friendly f-ing relations with our own bloodthirsty companies
right here in the US. same for our lousy failing healthcare that only feeds the fat faces of the
private owners...
our freeways in Silicon Valley are lined with homeless people right now who are freezing at
night, in a city that would shut off the outdoor outlets near city hall so that homeless disabled
people will push their wheelchairs someplace else. the Bezos bozos are so out of touch. we know
who to blame.
The report is clearly a fake. The authors are totally incompetent. They claim that CHOPSTICK is
a Russian Intelligence Service Actor. It is so blatanly clear to anyone with any knowledge of
international security threats that CHOPSTICK is Chinese.
Nott has form. His wife was highly placed in the Institute of Strategic Studies (a connected
thinktank), and she now runs the Nott Foundation, a charity which finances and organises training
in disaster medicine. I wonder if they get a good deal on bulk purchases of white helmets?
Is Obama dumb enough to attempt an executive order, which might, for example, claim that Russia
had significantly affected the presidential elections and falsely maintain his own presidency?
So an actual coup? Everything the US does abroad works its way back home eventually, so I would
not put it past his handlers to try it. The alternative would be to murder Trump. Either way,
the US could then go into Ukraine-style meltdown.
This is way worse than it used to be. There was something to be said for
stodgy journalism. Even when it misrepresented reality, it did so in terms
that sounded comparatively measured and adult, not like hysterical kids on a
playground.
I agree – I have never seen journalism like this before. Have been
watching a lot of MSNBC and CNN during the past few weeks and I can't
believe how over the top they are about the Russian hacking story – it
goes on for hours. And the papers too. Is it that it is a slow news
period and they have to keep their audiences shocked and awed all the
time? I have no idea why this is going on about the Russian hacking
unless the media is trying very hard to change people's opinions about
Russia, and if they are, why? What's the objective? And the 99 senators
too are in on this? They make it sound very serious and yet it seems
everyone is being hacked all the time anyway.
Considering part of the original Cold War mania was devised to cover up the
fact the US was importing a slew of former Nazis for varied and sundry reasons,
not to mention allowing them to slip into hiding without any real effort made
to find them, one does have to wonder at the coincidence that we are now
engaging in neo-Cold War rhetoric just as the "alt-right" neo-Nazis have been
granted dispensation to go public.
Of course, one could believe the idea that all those former Nazis were
really just poor souls who only worked for the Third Reich out of fear for
their families and were, therefore, only too happy to embrace the joys of
American freedom. One could, were it not for the other coincidence that similar
fascist organizations have arisen almost simultaneously to public attention
throughout Europe.
But never mind. That's tinfoil-hat stuff. We trounced all that Nazi scum,
and besides most of the people weren't really Nazis and didn't believe all that
stuff. Right?
From
thehill
.com
-
December 29, 2016 10:07 PM
Enrique Ferro's insight:
Who can believe them? Why is NSA silent? Their
"evidence" is flimsy, based on hearsay. Obama's
cybernetic false flag has been created to sway over
Trump's future foreign policy at best, seeking to
perpetuate the neocons' Russophobic approach. Or worse
to delegitimize Trump's election. Obama/Clinton's game
is to reverse one way or another the electoral result.
With this stratagem now they intend to rally the
die-hard warmongers in the Republican party, and set
the frame for an impeachment. Disgusting.
Re:
Something About This Russia Story Stinks by Matt Taibbi Rolling Stone. Looks like
Tabbi is on something. Obama has a lot to hide to the fact that Trump will enter White house in 2017 is really disconcerting
for him. So attempt to tie Trump into anti-Russian hysteria might be kind of Hail Mary pass.
Notable quotes:
"... "The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes. ..."
"... "The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website." ..."
"... Over 40 million 'attacks' a day, on just three entities. Bollocks. 'Attack' is far too dramatic a word for a port probe. ..."
"... Hillary is possibly the worst serious candidate ever. Emails and speeches aside, she was a disaster with no business running for President after her prominent national career. ..."
"... The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it. ..."
"... And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"? Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was not something they got her to do. ..."
"... I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler. I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things blow up in our faces. All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say. Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers mediocre. ..."
"... If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive response miles worse – than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes. ..."
"... I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election. He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything. ..."
"... Meanwhile, a number of IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone a connection to the Russian government. Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting websites running WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday. ..."
"... Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be "made in Ukraine." The version tested by the FBI/DHS report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool's website is 4.1.1b. ..."
I agree, Tabbi in his Rolling Stone piece is now, finally, after his Trump induced psychosis,
back on form. Something about the Russian Story does stink. Summing up, if the Russians did steal
the election why the weak response now? Or is it just a good excuse for losing to Trump and/or
is Obama is trying to protect his legacy by delegitimizing Trump? Either way, Obama looks to be
underplaying or overplaying his hand.
I wonder if this is really Obama, who is out the door, talking or is the national security
state, who is not going anywhere? If it's the latter, then things start to make sense. It says
to me, they are not happy with the new direction in foreign policy that Trump represents. In fact,
they refuse to accept it and him.
How is this tension is resolved is the single most important question in the weeks ahead.
"The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like
Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by
a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.
"The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship
with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website."
'll leave you with some additional recent numbers on cyberintrusions, as reported by various
actors:
The energy company BP says it suffers 50,000 attempts cyberintrusion a day.
The Pentagon reports getting 10 million attempts a day.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, also records
10 million hacks a day.
The United Kingdom reports 120,000 cyberincidents a day.
That's almost as many as the state of Michigan deals with.
Utah says it faces 20 million attempts a day - up from 1 million a day two years ago.
=============================================================
WOW!!!! Seems like a really big F*cking deal!!!!
Kinda makes me wonder how many laws and regulations have been enacted forcing internet companies
and software companies to make their stuff more secure .
{{{{{{ In July 2012, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was proposed by Senators Joseph Lieberman
and Susan Collins.[15] The bill would have required creating voluntary "best practice standards"
for protection of key infrastructure from cyber attacks, which businesses would be encouraged
to adopt through incentives such as liability protection.[16] The bill was put to a vote in the
Senate but failed to pass.[17]}}}}}}
And of course (I don't want to over link so you have to look it up yourself) there are the
laws that ALLOW intrusion by the US government into your computer, of course makes computer systems
LESS SECURE .
So, almost makes me think Trump, OF ALL PEOPLE, was actually CORRECT when he said:
"I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made
it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things,
but I'm not sure we have the kind the security we need. But I have not spoken with the senators
and I will certainly will be over a period of time."
And how much the above is being mocked, by people without the presence of mind to ask, "how long,
and how many hacks have already occurred, and WHAT WAS DONE ABOUT IT?"
Hacking, that happens millions upon millions of times a year now for near a decade, but apparently
only a BIG F*CKING DEAL when an incompetent dem SAYS she has LOST the presidency due to hacking .
The Russia hacking story goes back to early October with wiki leaks. Who is at fault for Trump?
Sherrod Brown, Senator of a state where Hillary lost and prominent Clinton supporter despite his
previous support for good policy, DWS, Tim Kaine, Donna Brazille, or Russians?
Plenty of people
are invested in not being held accountable for 2000. The front runner for DNC chair is a Muslim,
Sanders supporter because even Democrats are growing upset, but one of the perks of Washington
is celebrity.
My guess is going forward Dems will be under greater scrutiny and will find significantly
less brown nosers.
Hillary is possibly the worst serious candidate ever. Emails and speeches aside,
she was a disaster with no business running for President after her prominent national career.
This was obvious to any sane and decent human being. The lesson of 2016 is even the "good Democrats"
such as Sherrod Brown and Liz Warren need short leashes. In 2020, all these people have to go
to Iowa (very close), New Hampshire (a blowout), and Nevada (openly rigged by former Senator Reid).
How does a candidate push their "progressive" credentials after throwing in with Hillary? Hillary
primary voters have the unfortunate age issue.
Then of course, there are people who don't want to believe they bought this bs when Hillary
should have been dumped ages ago.
The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or
hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it.
And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"?
Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say
that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm
pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was
not something they got her to do.
I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler.
I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people
in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things
blow up in our faces.
All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say.
Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers
mediocre.
How is this tension is resolved is the single most important question in the weeks ahead.
Sometimes the simplest "solutions" are the ones we never think of – Assassination of Trump
by the Deep State, the Blob, whatever you call it. But this may take more that just weeks ahead
to materialize if at all.
If you believe President Kennedy was killed by the Deep State (I'm agnostic on that due to
never researching it), and if Trump does deal with the bi-partisan War Party Deep State Blob elements
by standing them down as he did his Republican primary challengers and Apprentice guests . then
this may be the logical way to put an end to the threat Trump represents to the establishment.
And there is so much that is threaten by Trump of the established order.
Trillions of war armament purchase orders from NATO and the US military hinge in the balance
by continued US and NATO belligerence towards Russia. Add to that the gas pipeline thru Syria
that will be less likely to happen under Trump. The lost looting if no regime change in Russia
like we did in Ukraine – all that lost oil and natural resource the global elites will be denied.
All the lost military spending. The lost boogyman to instill fear for more surveillance of the
citizenry. The Deep State, Blob, War Party will be furious.
Yes, it is positive that he openly expresses skepticism in the current environment. But why
this?
If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive
response miles worse – than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes.
Leaking emails would require a 'massive response'? Has he seen Zero Days? What kind of response
would be appropriate for hacking a nuclear plant? Assassinating nuclear scientists? Is he aware
that we have 'hacked' elections for years? Not to mention overthrown legal governments.
And this:
I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election.
He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything.
Would Taibbi ever use similar language to describe Obama? So many in the media and other elite
circles are suffering from Putin Derangement Syndrome.
How many countries have Obama /Clinton attempted regime change to covert/direct interference
in elections/leadership? I would imagine the answer is far more than my quick list below. We couldn't
hack/leak internal emails among the players because our bloody hypocritical hands would be all
over them.
As for Russia if all they did was expose truths via party emails, well I thank them for that.
And considering what Clinton said and did to Russia over the years it would be irresponsible for
a Russian leader to sit by idly and do nothing. Even though we seem to be destroying ourselves
quite well enough on our own, we have and continue to threaten the rest of the world, beginning
with Russia with nuclear holocaust.
If Taibbi can call Putin all those things, then what the heck are Obama Clinton?
Ukraine
Russia
Syria
Venezuela
Honduras
Egypt
Yemen
Iraq
Palestinians
Libya
Paraguay
Turkey?
Brazil?
Argentina?
Thailand?
Hong Kong?
Taibbi has some personal journalistic history with previous Putin governments. It's understandable
that he'd cast side-eye Putin's way, though none too healthy in this deranged environment (just
wait until some corporate Dem tries to use him as a Surprising Validator). Let's keep Taibbi on
turn watch though.
It seems the need to celebrate some leader is less conntected to said leader's performance
than to some perceived need to be led, to believe that the very concept of hierarchy is just.
I do not understand this attitude at all. A writer who generally does good work says something
that I disagree with so I will never read them again. It's tantamount to saying I refuse to read
critically. I don't want to see anything I don't agree with 100%. It's petty.
It's true that the other annie has been posting comments on the site for a while, so it would
be less confusing if you were to modify your handle so that people can tell you two apart.
On the other hand, don't take any of the comments from people who were concerned personally
– obviously it's easy enough for two people to share the same name, and the software doesn't flag
when you are using a name that has been used before.
I heard a report that Lindsey McCain et al have armstwisted Trump into hearing the CIA report
on the Russian hack. What are they going to say? 'You won the election because of teh Russians!'
"Good gracious me! You're the CIA, find me out what his favorite liquor is so I can send him
a bottle!"
So they'll tell him to his face he wasn't competent to win the election himself? My guess is
says brief me again when I'm President, they walk in the door and he properly fires them. And
his face will be like
this .
"warrant" and "executing/capable of carrying out" are two different things.
As Putin has shown, Obama's capability threshold so low that it's rather moot to discuss
warrant. It's now up to Congress to do something magnificently stupid, violent and utterly
worthless, or rather worthy of the great American tradition.
And what on earth is the journalistic point of saying "I have no problem in believing something
for which there seems to be no credible evidence and which is being pushed by obvious partisan
interests?" I think Taibbi is 'normalising' fast.
I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for
me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh
Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad
for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted
by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop. Even if
the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First because Bush
pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but
still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the
Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course
domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away
fast enough.
Your position is obviously different.
And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.
Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism.
My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.
The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power
with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never
let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.
In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed
to be. Feint left, drive right.
With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.
Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people
here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments
section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)
Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive"
and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. At
the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted
for with them.
Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are
a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with
opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage
conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum;
"Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters
bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation
and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.
So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it. You
may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."
Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1
to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.
It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players
and too many styles. It's just not possible.
Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of
course.
I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive.
He's far from progressive.
I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly
brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.
My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for
which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's
not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.
Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have
performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for
sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.
The liberals have so much invested in Obama they can't bear to admit he's a backstabbing failure.
There is no sugar coating Bush's awfulness. There also is no denying things now are worse than
they were in 2007, before the Great Recession began. The liberals like to say things are better
than they were when Obama took office. But that's a comically low bar. Rock bottom of the Great
Recession. We have not recovered.
Obama isn't gaudy bad like Bush. Obama's pathologies are smoother, like his desperation for
establishment approval.
The liberals like to say that things are better than they were when Obama took office. Sorry
to share this tidbit, but I must:
On Friday, March 18, I was among the 7,000 people who heard Bernie Sanders speak at the Tucson
Convention Center Arena. Guess what he said.
And, to my utter and total amazement, the audience burst into applause. I couldn't believe
it. Much of Sanders' appeal was based on how lousy the economy still was for so many people. Including
Yours Truly.
My response to Sanders' praise of Obama's handling of the economy was a slow clap. A few minutes
later, I left the rally.
Of course it's acceptable. It's even important, vitally. But his height? I know I know it was
not really an ad hom, but why even mention it?
He fetishized making nice w the rethugs to our and the country's detriment. He had 2 years
to get something done. And honestly I have no idea if it would have been different w a less hostile
congress. My complaint is he didn't really try. Everything was half measures, pablum.
Far too generous. He did try to get Republican policies enacted. He wasn't a weak Democrat,
he was a driven Republican who was only thwarted by a comically, stupidly hostile GOP that sabotaged
things like the Grand Bargain/Great Betrayal because they had such a virulent hatred of the black
guy.
If Obama had enacted the agenda he ran on– even in part - the Democrats would not have lost
Congress in 2010. Obama's "only having two years" is thoroughly on himself and his party.
The site would be poorer and I would be sadder for the loss of your comments.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-30/can-this-political-union-be-saved
Shortly before I got married, I received a piece of sterling advice that I have been mulling a
lot over the last year: "You have a big decision to make: Do you want to be married, or do you
want to be right?"
.
The more determined you are to win every battle, the more likely you are to lose what's important:
the person you love so much that you have chosen to spend the rest of your life with them. And
so every time you have a real disagreement - the kind that cannot be finessed by agreeing that
tonight you'll order Indian, and next time you'll get Chinese - you have to think carefully before
you decide to have that fight. Is this really the hill that you're willing to let your marriage
die on?
..
While traveling a few months back, I ended up chatting with a divorce attorney, who observed that
what we're seeing in America right now bears a startling resemblance to what he sees happen with
many of his clients. They've lost sight of what they ever liked about each other; in fact, they've
even lost sight of their own self-interest. All they can see is their grievances, from annoying
habits to serious wrongs. The other party, of course, generally has their own set of grievances.
There is a sort of geometric progression of outrage, where whatever you do to the other side is
justified by whatever they did last. They, of course, offer similar justifications for their own
behavior.
======================================================
Every friend, every association we make, every relationship with a relative, every political entity
can be dissolved. One can insist one is correct on every matter, and live a long life with ever
fewer associations until maybe one has none at all.
As to which president is worse, your all wrong. Supposedly , 99 senators believe Russia hacked
us. Our country apparently is composed entirely of imbeciles without regard to race, creed, sex,
or party .
If you can't bear to encounter comments that contradict your political opinion then you should
probably also skip Thanksgiving dinner and other family get-togethers.
Whether you read the comments here is up to you, but I'd suggest continuing to visit for the
articles at least. You won't find the same level of analysis elsewhere. The MSM is heavily invested
in pushing their "narrative" whether or not it's true. I believe we have a duty as citizens to
seek out the best sources of information. NC is on that list.
If you can't bear to encounter comments that contradict your political opinion then you should
probably also skip Thanksgiving dinner and other family get-togethers.
I believe we have a duty as citizens to seek out the best sources of information, even if that
results in encountering opinions that are uncomfortable to us. NC is one of those sources. Whether
you read the comments here is up to you, but I'd suggest continuing to visit for the articles
at least. You won't find the same level of analysis elsewhere. The MSM is heavily invested in
pushing their "narrative" whether or not it's true.
The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or
hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it.
And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"?
Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say
that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm
pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was
not something they got her to do.
I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler.
I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people
in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things
blow up in our faces.
All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say.
Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers
mediocre.
You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few things Obamanation did:
1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President
ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared
by Congress.
2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal
and unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture,
and assassinate anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.
3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered
because of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief
in austerity helped defeat Clinton 2016.
I think the following quote summarizes the article and the writer's attitude toward those experiencing
this tragedy:
Conclusion:
For the group as a whole, there was only a 10% loss in income in November. However, the
impact on certain types of occupations was high, with income loss up to 44% among the self-employed.
Re Something About This Russia Story Stinks, I feel like Obama's weak response is a passive
aggressive way of telegraphing that he doesnt believe The Russians Did It either.
Since the NSA not the CIA would be the main actor involved with cyber security and Obama has
instructed the CIA to take action and noted his CIA reports, it's clear "OMG Russia" was always
red meat to help Hillary with Republicans. The problem is the Dems told such an incredulous lie
in early October many of their own voters and donors believed it because "Obama wouldn't make
something up."
Obama needs to do enough to soothe Democrats who believe this nonsense while not gaining the
ire of the sane. Obama will never utter the truth or do the right thing. Polling indicates his
Russian story isn't catching on. When Congressmen go home to their districts, they might not be
so eager to discuss Russia when they find the voters don't care Podesta's emails were leaked.
Certain Dems especially Clinton connected ones who swore Hillary was a tolerable candidate
and the msm after being in the tank for Hillary for so long are desperate to regain credibility.
Admitting the Russian story was an obvious sham means acknowledging complicity or being a mark.
See how easy it is. It's not my fault. It's the foreign leader you have no control over who was
at fault.
I think "Russia hacked the election" is a (seemingly pretty successful) psyop to inoculate
as many as they can against being willing to hear anything about charges for Hillary's basement
server State Dept. They're sweeping hacks and leaks of different types and kinds into one big
dust bunny and stuffing it under a rug misleadingly called "Russia hacked the election" - rather
than "Russia hacked Hillary's illegal basement server" which would of course be a big legal problem
for some people. Those people and their cadre don't want anyone saying that or even able to think
it. Squirrel!! FakeNews!! Resist!!
Obama knows he beat Hillary in 2008, when she was also expected to be crowned.
And he knows he beat her for the same reason Trump did: people wanted anyone who wasn't perceived
(emphasis on perceived) to be if the long time political establishment.
It's funny that no reporter, if they really nelieve this, has asked Obama how far back the
intelligence committe was investigating "Putin's interference". Russia knew both Clinton and McCain
had their hawkish sites set. The Clinton campaign was a leaky mess back then and no one once cried
"hacking."
Imagine the hilarity if it were true and Russia helped elect Obama.
I think you're right.
On the one hand, we are told to believe our intelligence agencies' assertions that Russia directly
influenced the results of our Presidential election - in other words, that they intentionally
subverted our democratic process (such as it is) in order to ensure the election of their preferred
candidate. That's pretty heavy stuff.
So what is the official U.S. response? We're gonna send some Russian folks home right before
Christmas really screw up their holiday plans!
Well played Obama - that will totally make them think twice before installing the next puppet
president.
I think "Russia hacked the election" is a (seemingly pretty successful) psyop to inoculate
as many as they can against being willing to hear anything about charges for Hillary's basement
server State Dept. They're sweeping hacks and leaks of different types and kinds into one big
dust bunny and stuffing it under a rug misleadingly called "Russia hacked the election" - rather
than "Russia hacked Hillary's illegal basement server" which would of course be a big legal problem
for some people. Those people and their cadre don't want anyone saying that or even able to think
it. Squirrel!! FakeNews!! Resist!!
Meanwhile, a number of IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published
by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone
a connection to the Russian government. Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting
websites running WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday.
Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently
funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be "made in Ukraine." The version tested by
the FBI/DHS report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool's website is
4.1.1b.
I can't read the Washington Post story because of the paywall, but here is what VTDigger has
to say about this story. While I didn't read the Post story, the difference in headlines is interesting.
VTDigger's headline is "Russians Penetrated Burlington Electric Department Computer" which seems
less alarmist than the Post's "Russian Operation Hacked a Vermont Utility, Showing Risk to U.S.
Electrical Grid Security, Officials Say."
Aside from the hysterical quote by our outgoing governor Peter Shumlin, the Vermont officials
seem fairly calm about the incident. I would also note that Shumlin's failure to keep his promise
on universal health care probably endangers more Vermont lives than the Russian hack attempt.
The govt released a report of "evidence" for the alleged DNC hacks. Arizona Slim at 9:30 am
here posted a link to a critique of this "evidence." Meanwhile, utilities and other entities started
checking their systems for similar "evidence." Burlington found an instance on a laptop unconnected
to the grid.
Here's a summary from
emptywheel – she's actually somewhat of a believer in a Russian DNC hack, but not in this
grid story.
The problem with the DNC hack story is "who cares?" The Democrats are a private organization*
with very poor cyber security as evidenced by Hillary's basement server.
Podesta was not a government official conducting government business. Hacking and releasing
his emails is simply not interfering with the election.
*They made this claim in the primaries. The Democratic Party is in no way part of the U.S,
government. They warrant as much attention as a local business as they don't receive defense contracts.
Do you remember the Chinese hack of USA! USA! USA! SECURITY CLEARANCES!!!!!!! TOP SECRET STUFF!!!!
Do you remember the uproar and all the consequences to China?
All the trade sanctions???
The Chinese import restrictions???
DEF CON superduper ONE or what ever number they use for top DEF CONS now a days
How the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war and total global annihilation because of this
ACT OF WAR????
Arms manufacturers have an interest. The Russia is too small and too distant to overwhelm most
countries outside of the Baltics and the Caucuses. The Chinese if they are let in can overwhelm
most countries through soft power. Why change U.S. shackles for Chinese ones? The Russians offer
many of the same weapon and tech options as the U.S. and China without the soft power threat of
being overwhelmed.
Part of the neoconservative rationale back in the day was the state of defense tech advancement
would neutralize our wunder weapons and soldiers on the ground would matter again. We needed to
block the Chinese and Russians by destroying or assimilating anyone who wasn't 100% loyal or could
move into the Moscow sphere or cut into profit margins. The neoliberals pushed the U.S. would
dominate free trade because the US. would run defense, tech, and finance. Russia and China are
threats to every neoliberal promise.
There was no "penetration of the U.S. electricity grid." The truth was undramatic and banal.
Burlington Electric, after receiving a Homeland Security notice sent to all U.S. utility companies
about the malware code found in the DNC system, searched all their computers and found the code
in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.
Apparently, the Post did not even bother to contact the company before running its wildly sensationalistic
claims, so they had to issue their own statement to the Burlington Free Press which debunked the
Post's central claim (emphasis in original): "We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric
Department laptop NOT connected to our organization's grid systems."
So the key scary claim of the Post story – that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric
grid – was false. All the alarmist tough-guy statements issued by political officials who believed
the Post's claim were based on fiction.
========================================
Thanks for that marym!
I guess – no, I now KNOW it was just idiotic of me and a naive and foolish belief in "progress"
that I thought people could no longer be manipulated, like Americans in the 50's with the Red
Scare. If anything, it seems the mechanism for ginning up mass hysteria is more effective now
than it was than .
If I may be permitted to comment on my comment, permit me to say this about my article link's
origin:
The writer of said article runs a company called WordFence. Its flagship product is a WordPress
plugin that protects websites against hacking.
If you ever get the opportunity to manage a WordPress-powered website that has WordFence among
its plugins, be forewarned. You are going to be a very busy site manager.
Why? Because you'll get frequent e-mailed admonitions from WordFence. Better update this plugin,
your WordPress installation, your website theme, or some combination of these things. Yeah, it's
annoying at times, but the good news is that WordFence is a very vigilant plugin.
So, heed those admonitions and do those updates. Now!
Wow that Putin guy is smart. Brokering a cease-fire in Syria and brushing off Obama in one
week. Forget the 11th dimensional chess, this guy's the real chess player. Really knows how to
make a countermove. His exposing our failed policies is really what's driving the heated anti-Russian
rhetoric by the political establishment, imo.
Katniss responded with a comment about it being harder to rewrite history if people were actually
aware of it. Really at a loss for words as to how people could do something like this. You'd think
these ISIS ass***es would revere the Assyrians, being fellow head choppers and all but instead
they raze the place.
The city of Nimrud in northern Iraq is in pieces, victim of the Islamic State group's fervor
to erase history. The remains of its palaces and temples, once lined in brilliant reliefs of
gods and kings, have been blown up. The statues of winged bulls that once guarded the site
are hacked to bits. Its towering ziggurat, or step pyramid, has been bulldozed.
Funny thing is most of the good stuff from these sites was pillaged by the Brits 150 years
ago and a lot of the best reliefs can be found scattered through small New England liberal arts
colleges. Always thought they should be repatriated. Love to see these slabs lowered back into
place in Iraq someday especially if there are some Bush era neocons and ISIS types underneath
them when it happens.
Remember the "bridge of death" scene near the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where
after seeing Knight #1 walk safely across the bridge after getting 3 really easy questions from
the bridge troll, Knight #2 excalims "that's easy!", rushes to the front of the queue, and after
getting 2 easy questions, is stumped by "what is the capital of Assyria?" Funnily enough, I actually
knew that one – Nineveh. Or thought I did, because doing a quick lookup just now I see Nineveh
was the oldest city in Assyria and its ancient capital until its destruction in 612 BC, but Nimrud
was an earlier capital, from 879–722 BC. So the correct answer is in fact, "it depends."
Is there an update on the demands from NC towards WP and associated liars about the fake news
stories?
Just saw a tweet mentioning the editorial WP added to their original stuff, but couldn't see an
update in any of the ~posts here on NC.
Can somebody please kill this fantasy that Clinton I was "eight years of peace and prosperity"?
For many of us, it was the beginning of 25 years of working harder and making less. And of
hacked government stats to make the economy look better than it actually was.
Clinton 1, the best repug in the dem party, gave us
1) Haiti – a failed state
2) telecommunications bill that has given us the 5 corporations that offer the worst lamestream
media in the industrial world that lies endlessly.
3) end of the safety net (welfare as we know it) for those with the least increase in corporate
welfare
4) Glass-Steagall and corruption on Wall Street and all white collar crime actually that goes
completely unpunished
5) continuation of massive, runaway inequality
6) Hillary Clinton
7) NAFTA
8) increase in childhood poverty
9) sick care insurance that doesn't cover anyone for healthcare at all
10) and he also provided privatized social security with Newt Gingrich but Monica (good for her)
intervened.
While making no excuses for the ineptitude of our current establishmentarian politicos, I think
many of the commenters on here who seem in awe of Putin's political savvy forget an important
point: He's an autocrat. Whatever the U.S.'s current political failings, there is still a generally
effective system of checks and balances. Putin, as an autocrat, does not face these challenges.
He is free to shape his statecraft as he pleases and to implement tactics at the drop of a hat.
Our political system does not (and lord help us under the trump regime - should not) enjoy this
luxury. Whether you feel like the hacking is a ginned up conspiracy or not, cozying up to an autocrat
like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations.
"Whether you feel like the hacking is a ginned up conspiracy or not, cozying up to an autocrat
like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."
But what about about an oligarchy?
Our "democracy" has been dead for awhile for anyone not in the top 10%. You can't really be
an "existential threat" to something that doesn't exist.
Thus my statement: "Whatever the U.S.'s current political failings, there is still a GENERALLY
effective system of checks and balances." And yes, it can (and most likely will) get worse, before
it gets better. I'm not blind to the US's frailties. However, I feel there is still a "chance"
that we can step back from the brink of utterly destroying this 200 year experiment in representative
democracy. The closer we step to abiding autocracy as a matter of course, though, the closer we
step to the brink of not being able to reverse the considerable mistakes we have made.
No one anywhere ever is an autocrat no king, no dictator, no president, no fearless leader
and certainly not raz-putin and no one has ever been that is a pedestrian image of what it takes
to run an enterprise not castro, not saddam, not mao, not stalin .no one
Your statement does not; however, negate my assertion. Putin's ability to maneuver politically
(within whatever system you'd like to call it) is substantially less hampered by checks and balances
than ours. Our absolute polarization in this country has opened the door for "autocraticish" world
leaders to seriously undermine our "admittedly weakened by oligarchic influences" system of representative
democracy.
Our checks and balances were designed to serve the oligarchy. For some reason, you don't seem
to have a problem with things that are unfit for purpose as long as they demand attention.
I address the first sentence of your reply alone, because the second makes no sense.
So great, it's always been an oligarchy. I've read Zinn. But since you append no solution,
am I left to believe that the solution is let Putin destroy said oligarchy and replace it with
autocracy? Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. But I get it. Some people
just want to see the world burn.
The world is not debate club and it is not a business. You are not entitled to a solution.
I believe it's arrogant of you to believe that you are.
What's more, you're not ready to overlap your solution space with that of the people. Like
I said, the world is not debate club. This is an attempt to meet minds, not to pray like a Pharisee.
Let's start with this principle: does human welfare "net out"?
Adding, I understand that "world burm" stuff is on today's meme list, as I've seen it in plenty
of comment boxes around the Web, so you can stop pretending you're not on assignment. I want to
watch liberals' world burn for their arrogance, and I defy you to tell me why they don't deserve
that or worse.
Forgive me Webstir, but isn't Russia a capitalist democracy? Doesn't the UN etc get to monitor
their elections? Putin gets voted in in the usual way. If that is a problem, then it is a problem
for 'Democracy' generally. And remind me, these "checks and balances" – is that the CIA versus
the FBI? Is it the the DOJ and financial crime? What is it?
I guess that comment was directed to one of mine. Sorry, but I was just trying to express how
inept Putin makes our war-mongering political establishment look (probably because they are) just
by making a few strategic moves. If that came across as "cozying up" to the man, well, you might
be reading too much into it. And the 11th dimensional chess remark was /sarc.
"Cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."
Huh!????? Not maintaining "amicable relations" with Putin and Russia is an existential threat
to ALL nations of the world.
And how is it cozying up to Putin to question the plainly false assertions by our Security
Industrial Complex or admire some clever but relatively straightforward responses to Obama's "retaliations"?
Do you believe the President of United States has no capacity to control and direct the actions
of the Executive Branch? The President has considerable autocratic power - little or not mitigated
by "checks and balances" - as the head of the Executive Branch of the United States.
"Cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."
Not maintaining "amicable relations" with Putin and Russia is an existential threat to ALL nations
of the world.
How is it cozying up to Putin to question the plainly false assertions by our Security Industrial
Complex or admire some clever but relatively straightforward responses to Obama's "retaliations"?
Do you believe the President of United States has no capacity to control and direct the actions
of the Executive Branch? The President has considerable autocratic power - little or not mitigated
by "checks and balances" - as the head of the Executive Branch of the United States.
Now, we can feel better about finishing of those bees, because we can bring always bring them
back later.
More enabling of Nature-abusing, should it become a part of cost-benefit analysis – the cost
of preserving a species, versus letting it die now and bringing it back 50 years later – because
we humans know exactly what we're doing. Having more options is always better.
In the mean time, get the award ready for another display of superior intelligence.
I don't disagree.
For me, teading the story brought up this segue:
The general appearance of the auroch bull is similar to the smaller Spanish fighting bull.
Which reminds me, there are several kinds of bull fighting. Portuguese bull fighting isn't featured
in movies but wow is it something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS4bGwA0QSc
Is Obama using Russia to force a wedge between Trump and his party? Guardian
Having compromised national security in order to defeat Hillary Clinton, the Republican leadership
may now see Trump as expendable. After all, he chose a standard rightwing Republican, the Indiana
governor, Mike Pence, as his running mate, which means McConnell and Ryan can always arrange to
have Trump impeached if he becomes too much trouble.
For Obama, Russia is thus a uniquely effective wedge issue, with the potential to divide the
president-elect from his party. If Trump tries to remove the new sanctions, he could face blowback
from Congress; if he doesn't, his friendly relationship with Putin could be damaged.
===================================================================
If Trump is truly not fervently anti Russian, than he was gonna have problems with the repubs
soon enough. As I commented yesterday, to me the issue is Trump strong enough to resist the many
and varied forms of persuasion that will be marshaled by the MIC and associated hangers on to
continue the very lucrative cold war funding.
I saw a retrospective on the Trump campaign, and the part where Trump got sat down and questioned
on abortion. Trump finally answered the question, "do you think women who have abortions should
be punished?"
Trump's answer of yes reveals two things to me:
1. Yes, of course he is a politician and gives an answer that he believes his base wants to hear.
It took him a while to learn the standard inconsistent but repub politically correct answer.
2. I doubt very much, to the extent Trump has "core beliefs" that Trump was against abortion.
But Trump, maybe more than most, will change to mollify the base.
Now, I don't think the repub base actually gives a rat's as* about spending money to contain
Russia, but I think the modern elites can sure make it seem like they do. I am hoping, but I doubt
Trump, has the backbone, skill, and intellect to really counter a sustained effort to keep us
at the status quo ante (i.e., keep us knee jerk anti Russian).
The question is: are there REALLY 99 senators who believe Russia hacked the election or same
difference, 99 who will vote that Russia hacked us?
And you know what that means? It means that we are governed in mass, by seriously incompetent
people with ideological blinders on – Trump is the least of our problems .
Fancy that, Harvard still has a "cold war center" with nitwits who sell this as "analysis"?
Mark Kramer, the program director for the Project on Cold War Studies at Harvard's Davis
Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, told Business Insider in an email Friday that Putin's
"conspicuous announcement today was intended in part to give the impression that Obama's measure
are weak and inconsequential (as indeed they largely are) and do not deserve a response."
"Putin can thus depict himself as taking the high road," Kramer added, "and undoubtedly
will be praised in European and Third World countries that are always eager to condemn the
United States."
If Trump is truly not fervently anti Russian, than he was gonna have problems with the repubs
soon enough.
========================================
I dunno. Mr. Trump, excuse me, President-Elect Trump, has a real gift for knowing what the
people want, or at least what they want to hear. And the R's are conditioned (by the Tea Part
et al) to fear their base. May it be that the Repubs (elites) will have problems with Trump? As
for the Demos, Demo-friendly pundits and the vast "left wing conspiracy", I keep having the feeling
that all this Putin-blaming stuff is because "Empress Hillary said so" and the DC/Demo-apparatus
does not dare (yet) pile on the Trump wagon. See what happens on Jan 21.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
![]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"73","h":"111","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBE73l4.img?h=1107&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"95","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBE73l4.img?h=949&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"95","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBE73l4.img?h=949&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"}})
© Provided by Daily Intelligencer
© AP Photo/ Manuel Balce Ceneta
Dozen Most Insane Statements From US Congress' Hearing on 'Russian Spying'
Eugene Rumer, a former national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the US
National Intelligence Council, claimed that "fake news" and "trolls" are an "integral
part of Russian foreign policy."
© Flickr/ Tony Swartz
Cheney Seeks to Manipulate Trump 'Splashing Gasoline' Into Election 'Scandal'
Watts cited hashtags such as "God," "constitution," "conservative," and "Trump"
as examples of hashtags used by "Russian trolls." He also claimed that Kremlin
operatives did not stop meddling in American politics after the election, and just
this week engaged in a campaign to smear House Speaker Paul Ryan.
Pixabay
The 'Democrats' Benghazi': Russian Hacking Saga Continues
During the second panel, Rubio shocked the room when he stated that former members
of his presidential campaign were "targeted" by people using IP addresses in Russia,
first in July, and again on Wednesday.
© REUTERS/ Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool
Trump 'Takes Advantageous Position,' Accuses Hillary Clinton of Russia Ties
Another Senate witness, Thomas Rid, professor in the Department of War Studies
at King's College London, strangely asserted that WikiLeaks, Twitter and "over eager
journalists" are all "unwitting Russian agents."
