“I’m very close to Israel . . . very close. I have a great relationship, very close. Far better than our president
has,” he told the jubilant Birch Run audience.
“You don’t become a Manhattan real estate mogul without seeding the Kosher pot.”
~Brother Nathanial Kapner
One would think that being a real estan developer in NY requires high level of intelligence
and strict self-discipline. Wrong. As Trump proved you can be obnoxious bully and narcissist and still succeed. It is absolutely incredible
that such an uneducated narcissist became the US President but large pat of this fault lies on Hillary Clinton and the US neoliberal
establishment. Which pushed Sanders under the bus in2016.
... it's hard to recall a President who had such little interest, or expertise, in the details of
governing. Wayne Barrett, the legendary Village Voice muckraker who died on Thursday, at the age of seventy-one, had
covered Trump for almost as long as anybody. (He published a book about him, in 1992.) “Donald just has no interest in
information," Barrett told Jennifer
Gonnerman, shortly after the election. "He has no genuine interest in policy. He operates by impulse.”
We now knew Trump was being financed and heavily supported by the Zionists such as Sheldon Adelson who gave
Trump a huge campaign donation. His son-in-law and Ivanka are is clearly Zionists. his major appointment such as Bolton
and Pompeo are typical rabid neocons which would be perfectly at home in Bush II administration.
Trump’s brazen, shoot-from-the-hip style appealed to many voters fed up with neoliberal Washington. And since his inauguration, Trump
has made a show of breaking the rules — shaking up the political establishment with everything from unorthodox decisions to off-the-cuff
comments to full-blown international scandals.
Some pundits have questioned the president’s mental state and wondered aloud whether he has a diagnosable mental health condition
called Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Some ADHD experts, including
George
Sachs, Psy.D., and Ben Michaelis, Ph.D.,
posit that Donald Trump might be running the country with undiagnosed ADHD.
Tony Schwartz,
the ghostwriter of Donald Trump’s The Art of the Deal, cited the President’s short attention span, impulsive tendencies, restless
behavior, and daily fix via Twitter. Nothing in Trump’s public medical records indicate he has ever been diagnosed with ADHD but his father send him to the New
York Military Academy (NYMA), the private boarding school to rain on his behaviour (How
young Donald Trump was slapped and punched until he made his bed - New York Daily News)
According to the DSM-V, an individual may qualify for an ADHD diagnosis only if five or more symptoms under one or more of the categories
below are present before age 12, are present in more than one setting (i.e. work and home), and “interfere with, or reduce the quality
of, social, school, or work functioning.”
Inattention
Fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities — Trump is
known for making spelling errors in tweets (the confounding “covfefe” is perhaps the most obvious example). He has misspelled “honored”
as “honered,” “tap” as “tapp,” and “unprecedented” as “unpresidented” — painting a picture of an impatient typist who doesn’t take the
time to proofread the words reaching 34 million followers.
Has difficulty sustaining attention —
Jack O’Donnell,
a former business associate of Trump’s, said in an interview that if he wanted to run something by Donald, he would do it immediately
upon seeing him. Otherwise, he added, “If you hit him too late in the conversation, he might say, ‘Let’s talk about it later’ — and
he was gone.” O’Donnell isn’t the only one who’s noticed Trump’s tendency to get bored quickly. The magazine Foreign
Policy, in its article
“NATO Frantically Tries to Trump-Proof President’s First Visit,” quoted one anonymous NATO source who said: “It’s like they’re preparing
to deal with a child — someone with a short attention span and mood who has no knowledge of NATO, no interest in in-depth policy issues,
nothing.”
Does not seem to listen when spoken to directly — Early in his presidency,
it was revealed that while Trump appeared to be nodding along to remarks given by Shinzo Abe, the Prime Minister of Japan, he was
in fact not wearing a translation device in his ear, and thus could not actually be listening.
Does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace — At his transition
meeting with former President Barack Obama, Trump
“seemed surprised” by the job
ahead of him, insider reports said
Has difficulty organizing tasks and activities — After his Electoral College victory, Trump and his team struggled to organize
their personnel and materials for the post-Obama transition.
Avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort — Trump
has asked his staff to keep his daily briefings short, and fill them with “killer graphics” whenever possible. “I like bullets,
or I like as little as possible,” Trump
said in an interview
before his inauguration. “I don’t need, you know, 200-page reports on something that can be handled on a page.”
Easily distracted by extraneous stimuli — Trump
once paused in
the middle of his own speech on infrastructure projects to wave at a passing boat captain. “We’re going to restore America’s industrial
might,” he said. “And I look here, and, something, those barges, they’ve been waiting for us to say hello. The captain says please wave.
Hello, Captain.”
Fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat — Donald Trump often moves items on tables when he sits down, as late-night
TV host Jimmy Kimmel realized.
Appears “on the go” or acts as if “driven by a motor” — Trump is an avid golfer, and former playing partners have reported
that he speeds through courses at a breakneck pace.
Sportswriter Rick Reilly, who played a round of golf with Trump over a decade ago, wrote that they completed 18 holes in less than
three hours — “and that,” Reilly wrote, included “stopping often to harangue the stonemason, the path paver, and the greenskeeper to
redo the bricks, or re-trim a tree, or re-pave a path that is not absolutely, immaculately Trumpalicious.”
Talks excessively — The President has been known to give long-winded speeches that stray widely from his prepared remarks,
though this is hardly a unique trait among politicians. He’s also a habitual
tweeter, often going on late-night “Tweetstorms” regarding
whatever’s on his mind (or on TV) that day.
Impulsivity
Blurts out the answers before the questions have been completed — Trump often speaks without clearing it with his team,
which has led to some scrambling on the part of the White House. He once told the Associated Press that a tax reform plan would be rolled
out in the next five days; his aides, however, were unaware of this and had no such intentions. “The reason your head is spinning on
this is that the plan isn’t even written yet,”
one senior White House
official said shortly after Trump’s remarks.
Speaking off the cuff, he has also contradicted statements made by the White House team, as he did when speaking on camera with NBC
News anchor Lester Holt about the firing of FBI director James Comey. After Vice President Mike Pence said the firing came at the recommendation
of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein,
Trump said quite the opposite on camera: “I was going to fire Comey — my decision… I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.”
Has difficulty awaiting turn — During a NATO meeting earlier this year, Trump was
caught on video shoving the Prime Minister of Montenegro in an apparent bid to get to the front of the group of world leaders. On
the day of his Inauguration, he was also criticized for leaving behind his wife, Melania Trump, as he eagerly bounded out of their shared
limousine.
Interrupts or intrudes on others — During the debates, Trump repeatedly interrupted or spoke over his adversaries. After
his first head-to-head match with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, The
New York Times
counted 39 interruptions from Trump — compared to just 8 by Clinton.
Do the examples above prove that Donald Trump has ADHD? Absolutely not. Could strategically selected videos and quotes be found to
support almost any similar claim against a public figure like Trump? Quite likely.
The fact is: Only a qualified professional with experience evaluating symptoms of ADHD in adults could make that determination following
diagnostic interviews, test analysis, and a study of Trump’s family medical history. Without a full medical history and a transparent
diagnostic process, we may never know whether Trump has attention deficit or, as others have suggested, BMD, Narcissistic Personality
Disorder, or early signs of dementia.
Still, many experts have criticized the recent trend of “armchair diagnosis,” accusing unqualified pundits of jumping to conclusions
without first engaging in a full or accurate evaluation.
Let's travel back in time to March of 2020. It was then that predictions of mass death
related to the new coronavirus started to gain currency. One study, conducted by Imperial
College's Neil Ferguson, indicated that U.S. deaths alone would exceed 2 million.
The above number is often used as justification for the initial lockdowns. "We knew so
little" is the excuse, and with so many deaths expected, can anyone blame local, state and
national politicians for panicking? The answer is a resounding yes.
To see why, imagine if Ferguson had predicted 30 million American deaths, and hundreds of
millions more around the world. Imagine the global fear, which is precisely the point. The more
threatening a virus is presumed to be, the more superfluous government force is. Really, who
needs to be told to be careful if a failure to be could reasonably result in death?
Death predictions aside, the other justification bruited in March of 2020 was that brief
lockdowns would flatten the hospitalization curve. In this case, the taking of freedom
allegedly made sense as a way of protecting hospitals from a massive inflow of sick patients
that they wouldn't have been able to handle, and that would have resulted in a public health
catastrophe. Such a view similarly vandalizes reason. Think about it.
Really, who needs to be forced to avoid behavior that might result in hospitalization?
Better yet, who needs to be forced to avoid behavior that might result in hospitalization at a
time when doctors and hospitals would be so short staffed as to not be able to take care of
admitted patients?
Translated for those who need it, the dire predictions made over a year ago about the
corona-horrors that awaited us don't justify the lockdowns; rather they should remind the
mildly sentient among us of how cruel and pointless they were. The common sense that we're to
varying degrees born with, along with our genetic predisposition to survive, dictates that a
fear of hospitalization or death would have caused us to take virus-avoidance precautions that
would have well exceeded any rules foisted on us by politicians. Goodness, masks and hand
sanitizers were selling out in Germany at a time when politicians were still downplaying the
virus.
Vital Signals Get Lost
To which some will reply with something along the lines of "Not everyone has common sense.
In truth, there are lots of dumb, low-information types out there who would have disregarded
all the warnings. Lockdowns weren't necessary for the wise among us; rather they were essential
precisely because there are so many who aren't wise." Actually, such a response is the best
argument of all against lockdowns.
Indeed, it cannot be stressed enough that "low information" types are the most crucial
people of all during periods of uncertainty. Precisely because they'll be unaware of,
misunderstand, or reject the warnings of the experts, their actions will produce essential
information that the rule-followers never could. In not doing what the allegedly wise among us
will, low information citizens will, by their contrarian actions, teach us what behavior is
most associated with avoidance of sickness and death, and more important, what behavior is
associated with it.
One-size-fits-all decrees from politicians don't enhance health outcomes as much as they
blind us to the actions (or lack thereof) that would protect us the most, or not. Freedom on
its own is a virtue, plus it produces crucial information.
But wait, some will say, "how elitist to let some people act as Guinea Pigs for the rest of
us." Such a statement is naïve. Heroin and cocaine are illegal, but people still use both.
Thank goodness they do. How could we know what threatens us, and what doesn't, without the
rebellious?
Economic Growth Is the Best Medicine
Still, there's the question of "elitism," or comment about it. The view here is that the
lockdowns were the cruelest form of elitism, by far. The implied statement about the lockdowns
was that those who had the temerity to have jobs that were destinations would have to lose
them. The lockdowns destroyed tens of millions of destination jobs, destroyed or severely
impaired millions of businesses, not to mention the hundreds of millions around the world who
were rushed into starvation, poverty or both as a consequence of nail-biting politicians in
rich countries that chose to take a break from reality. Talk about elitist actions, plus the
very idea of wrecking the economy as a virus-mitigation strategy will go down in history as one
of the most abjectly stupid policy responses the world has ever endured.
That's the case because economic growth is easily the biggest enemy death and disease have
ever known, while poverty is easily the biggest killer. Economic growth produces the resources
necessary so that doctors and scientists can come up with answers to what needlessly sickens us
or shortens our lives altogether.
If anyone doubts the above truth, it's useful to travel back in time to the 19th century. A
broken femur then brought with it a 1 out of 3 chance of death, while those lucky enough to
survive the break had only one option: amputation. A child born in the 19th century had as good
a chance of dying as living. A broken hip was a death sentence, cancer most certainly was, but
most didn't die of cancer because tuberculosis and pneumonia got them first.
So what happened? Why don't we get sick or die as easily as we used to? The answer is
economic growth. Business titans like Johns Hopkins and John D. Rockefeller created enormous
wealth, only to direct a lot of it toward medical science. What used to kill us became
yesterday's news.
Even though freedom is its own wondrous virtue, even though freedom produces essential
information that protects us, and even though free people produce the resources without which
diseases kill with sickening rapidity, panicky politicians erased it in 2020 on the supposition
that personal and economic desperation were the best solution for a spreading coronavirus.
Historians will marvel at the abject stupidity of the political class in 2020.
* * *
John Tamny is Vice President at FreedomWorks, editor of RealClearMarkets , and author of the new
book "When Politicians Panicked: The New Coronavirus, Expert Opinion, and a Tragic Lapse of
Reason."
takeaction 16 hours ago (Edited)
No politician panicked...
Everything going as planned...NOW.
First we have Trump accidentally beating Hillary(The cheating machine goofed). This was
the Dems ultimate f&^k up. He was NEVER supposed to win. Then the plan was taken off the
shelf. We must destroy Trump...economy is booming, and he will win re-election if we don't do
something fast. So then came the cheating plan. Create a pandemic (Make the next wave of
normal flu into a huge boogie man)...this will force mail in ballots, which we can stuff and
fake....and then we can clean up and Joe is in. While we are at it...let's crush the
economy...hand out money like crazy and raise taxes. We want more people depending on just
the government and wipe out small business. While we are at it...let's see how far the people
will follow...Masks....Social Distancing etc. and then try to force an untested vaccine on
the pleabs. The plan is much more integrated and complex then this...but this is how I feel
it is going down.
NOTE: Starting yesterday here in Portland Oregon all restaurants are no longer to have
indoor dining. Gyms...no matter how big are only allowed 6 people. We are being locked down
again...Our Governor is insane. Remember...We have had "Cheat by Mail" since 1998 in Oregon
and it is very clear what has happened and is going on with our elections. Oh yeah...Tonight
is the May Day Antifa Riots downtown. More fun.
One final note...remember when they said "We just have to flatten the curve". Well...that
was a lie...as with most other claims from anybody with power.
Hypocritical lying pieces of s^%t. All of them. And what is really sad is the majority of
folks following orders. Sorry for the long rant. Just super pissed.
mijev 15 hours ago remove link
Imagine that you'd spent a year in the wilderness with no access to tv or the internet and
you get told that there's been a pandemic. So you ask what happened in the most densely
populated country in the world, Singapore, which is basically a massive cruise ship. "Oh,
they had 35 deaths."
LetThemEatRand 15 hours ago
I would rethink the part about Trump not being part of the plan. Remember it is Trump
himself who wants the vaccine called the Trumpcine. It is kind of bizarre how so many people
believe the entire virus thing is part of a NWO plan but still think Trump was riding a white
horse to save us. He was one of the four horsemen, maybe.
sleeping on a volcano 14 hours ago
Trump is not only a vaccine pimp. His cabinet was the swamp personified. He hired bill
barr (check out his history with ruby ridge and waco), he hired chris wray (check out his
investments in russia via king & spaulding). Trump ABANDONED the people HE INVITED to the
capitol. Trump, the lifelong democrat, his progeny are also dems, is either complicit or even
dumber than the MSM claims he is. I think it's pretty obvious.
NoDebt 16 hours ago (Edited) remove link
The view here is that the lockdowns were the cruelest form of elitism, by far.
What do you mean WERE? They are still happening and being rapidly reintroduced in many
areas they had previously been lifted.
And I'm going to let you in on a little secret: They'll happen again. Over and over as
political expediency dictates. They will NEVER end. And nobody in the elites will EVER admit
they are a mistake because they aren't. They are a PLAN.
adr 15 hours ago remove link
For the first time in history, nobody anywhere in the world died of the Flu.
The United States officially recognized 1713 cases of the flu from September 1st 2020 to
April 30th 2021.
Did you know that every single Covid PCR test can't tell the difference between Covid and
Influenza A, B, H1N1 and all other variants?
Go look up the technical documents. It is written on the first page under the bold type,
FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY, NOT TO BE USED AS A DIAGNOSTIC TEST.
Fauxchi has never answered the question, can the PCR test be used to diagnose an
infection?
GoodyGumdrops 15 hours ago
I know people who agreed with the lockdowns and the mask mandates. I now know their true
character Their livelihood wasn't affected by these draconian rules, so they had no problem
turning a blind eye to those who were being affected.
When the lockdowns started, that's when I knew this wasn't about a cold/flu virus. It made
absolutely no sense to shut down businesses worldwide and to force people to lose their
income. The consequences of these lockdowns in the near future will be incalculable.
I have always hated Trump (I despise oligarchs and narcissists, and I find the shallow
fakery of "reality TV" and pro wrestling repellent) but Trump's artifice, boorishness
and obnoxiousness could never compare to any of the other heads of state America has had
since that hayseed peanut farmer guy. It might take some time, but give perspective and
distance history will be kinder to Trump than any other president in the last half century or
more.
@MLK tle difference between GHW Bush's and WJ Clinton's substantive policies that it
absolutely did not matter who won, having written a 4,500 word think piece analyzing
the reasons for those non-existent differences which was published in a Little Rock news
weekly just before election day.
One key issue, when evaluating Trump, is the disconnect between his rhetoric and
appointments. It is not possible to drain the swamp by appointing swamp creatures to
oversee the work.
There are only three explanations for this: 1) Trump, as Paul Craig Roberts notes, was
unseasoned and in over his head; or 2) is simply a fool; or 3) knew exactly what he
was doing.
@Spanky r bean even though they were all pulling for him anyway, they were never able to
break Trump and they have never and will never forgive him for it.
Whether one characterizes Trump as staggeringly courageous and tenacious, or foolhardy
beyond belief. really tells us more about the opinion-holder than it does Trump.
The older I get the more I attribute actions even at the commanding heights to base
emotions and irrationality. The younger I was the more I was willing to believe these
characters knew what they were doing and, even if misguided, believed they were acting in the
national interest.
Among Trumps many achievements is putting that one to bed. They're not fooling anyone
anymore.
@MLK 1) their spurious and failed claim that Trump fanned insurrectionist flames
when compared to their actual support for violent racially-motivated riots, and 2) several of
Biden's executive orders directly harm their numerically larger and far less radical base.
No wonder H.R. 1 and S. 1 are at the top of their agenda.
the overwhelming majority of Americans [are] still stubbornly attached to the Rule of
Law, free and fair elections, and that consent of the governed thingie. -- MLK
One of the keys to unlocking the political chains forged by the privately-owned
political parties is that consent of the governed thingie .
Many Republicans are afraid of the following that Trump enjoys and do not want to lose
those votes. That's why Trump was not convicted. Otherwise, loyal Republicans constitute a
minority of about 25% of the country because most people realize that Republicans are worse
than the pathetic Democrats, especially when it comes to populist programs.
Trump is a despicable excuse for a human being. A con artist that could not make a go of a
gambling casino and has dodged fraud convictions while paying civil fines for a fake
University and being forced to shut down his New York Charity because he used it for his
personal enrichment and aggrandizement. His campaigning as a populist is a fraud. He has
sought to cut every government benefit that remained after Bill Clinton took an axe to them,
with the full support and delight of the Republican Party.
Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020. The bizarre Electoral College h.as delivered
the two worst Presidents in American history. But even those victories would have been
impossible without gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics of the Republican Party which
have never been properly punished because the perpetrators control the State Governments
which practice these election crimes.
We have already seen more deaths from Covid-19 than from Vietnam or WWII. Democrats made
the decision to put lives before profits with mixed results. But, the recommendations of
pandemic experts work best when enforced with dictatorial certainty or nearly full compliance
from a population that trusts its government to be looking out for its best interests. That
explains why almost every country in the world has been better able to manage Covid risks
than the United States. Socialist Sweden regrets the outcomes from following policies similar
to what Trump and the Republican Party recommends, which is the economy is more important
than poor peoples lives. To a Republican immigrants working in agricultural harvesting or
meat packing are both essential and disposable.
We probably haven't seen the last of Trump criminal cases of attempted vote tampering in
Georgia or tax evasion and fraud in New York. Trump has never had a health care plan to
replace the Obama plan which secured the insurance industry's profit position. Trump and the
Republicans prefer a system in which every citizen loses their health care whenever they lose
their job and never has any health care for pre-existing conditions. The notion that Trump is
a populist comes straight out of the Geoobell's handbook, as does most of Whitney's
commentary here.
I hear ya, laughable at Trump's Winning .lost the election, lost Georgia, lost Michigan,
lost Arizona, lost the Georgia Senate seats, veto of military budget bill overturned,
rebuffed by Pence, more illegal and legal immigration than ever, impeached twice. Pardoned
the likes of Kwame Kilpatrick on the way out of office. Trump's a big loser. He can now
retire and play golf with his best party friend's the clintons.
Retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, who served as President Donald Trump's chief of staff
and homeland security chief, was one of hundreds of administration officials invited to help
give Trump a rousing send-off on his last day in office as the departing president skipped the
inauguration of Joe Biden and instead ordered up a military salute to himself at Joint Base
Andrews.
Kelly declined to attend; his 18 months at the White House left a bitter taste in his
mouth.
"From a distance, it's impossible to understand who he actually is. But when you work
closely with him, you understand he's a very, very flawed human being," Kelly told CNN the day
after the Jan. 6 siege of the Capitol.
"All I ever heard from some of the real devotees in the White House was, 'You got to let
Trump be Trump.' Let me just say, this is what happens as a result of letting Trump be Trump,"
Kelly said of the deadly attack.
Kelly's experience, hoping to help Trump make better, more informed decisions only to be
blindsided at every turn by Trump's erratic, impulsive nature, is a story repeated by many
other national security officials who worked with him.
"He believes what he believes, and he will go and find people that will give him the opinion
he's looking for," Kelly said. "You don't survive by telling this president the truth, for very
long, anyway."
Defense Secretary Mark Esper discovered early on that he would have limited influence with
Trump.
The best he could expect to do would be to keep his head down and try to translate Trump's
tweets and bolt-from-the-blue orders into something resembling coherent policy, all while
quietly pushing the Pentagon to adapt to the changing nature of warfare in the age of
hypersonics and artificial intelligence.
"I can only control what I do," an exasperated Esper said in an
exit interview with Military Times after Trump fired him, post-election. "The
president's very transparent in terms of what he wants."
By all accounts, Esper went beyond the call of duty to carry out Trump's often mercurial
wishes while at the same time attempting to maintain the integrity of the department and to
shore up America's strained alliances.
"I'm not trying to make anybody happy. What I'm trying to do is fulfill what he wants and
make the best out of it," Esper said. "I mean, he's the duly elected commander in chief."
When Trump ordered 12,000 troops out of Germany to punish the NATO ally in his feud over
defense spending, Esper came up with a plausible rationale to defend the very expensive
move.
When Trump objected to the banning of Confederate flags on DOD and military installations,
Esper crafted a policy that finessed the problem without mentioning the rebel colors.
The reward for his fealty was to hear Trump mockingly refer to him as "Yesper," casting
Esper unfairly as just another of the president's yes men.
"Who's pushed back more than anybody? Name another Cabinet secretary that's pushed back,"
Esper said in his own defense. "Have you seen me on a stage saying, 'Under the exceptional
leadership of blah-blah-blah, we have blah-blah-blah-blah?'"
But Esper, like many who labored on behalf of Trump's agenda, eventually reached his
breaking point.
Last June, after Esper pushed back against Trump's desire to invoke the Insurrection Act to
deploy active-duty troops to put down protests for racial justice, Trump appeared to hoodwink
Esper and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley into accompanying him on a staged photo op after
mostly peaceful protesters were cleared by force from the park in front of the White House.
The rank politicization of the military was an embarrassment to both men, they said, and
both later apologized.
From that point on, Esper said he knew his days were numbered.
For Rex Tillerson, Trump's first secretary of state, the break came when Trump, against his
advice, met with Kim Jong Un with no plan other than to try to charm the North Korean dictator
with promises of peace and economic riches after threatening him with "fire and fury."
"We squandered the best opportunity we had on North Korea. It was just blown up when he took
the meeting with Kim," said Tillerson in an
interview with Foreign Policy . "That was one of the last straws between him and
I."
Tillerson said he accepted the job as top diplomat to help the neophyte Trump but found the
real estate developer and former reality TV star's total inexperience and short attention span
to be insurmountable obstacles.
"His understanding of global events, his understanding of global history, his understanding
of U.S. history was really limited," Tillerson said. "I started taking charts and pictures with
me because I found that those seemed to hold his attention better. If I could put a photo or a
picture in front of him or a map or a piece of paper that had two big bullet points on it, he
would focus on that."
"It's really hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn't even understand the
concept for why we're talking about this," he said.
Tillerson's account is one of many from former advisers, who uniformly described how
national security briefings had to be dumbed down to engage the president.
"It's really hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn't even understand the
concept for why we're talking about this," Tillerson said.
"Donald Trump is not really able, in most instances, to carry on discussions about policy,"
offered former national security adviser John Bolton, whose scathing book detailing Trump's
erratic decision-making was dismissed as total fiction by the White House, which tried to block
its publication on the grounds that it revealed classified information.
"When he disagrees with somebody, when he sees somebody as an adversary, it immediately
becomes personal. That's the only thing he understands," Bolton said in an appearance on CNN in
October.
"We couldn't have a discussion on the Iran nuclear weapons program without Trump saying to
anybody who was in the room that John Kerry needed to be prosecuted under the Logan Act for
talking to the Iranians," Bolton said. "I think it shows that the president doesn't fully
understand the nature of civil life in the United States. But I think it also reflects the sort
of low cunning that exemplifies his thinking."
For Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, the breaking point came when Trump inserted himself into
the military justice system on behalf of a Navy SEAL who killed a teenage Islamic State
prisoner but escaped a war crimes conviction when a medic in his unit, who had been granted
immunity by prosecutors, suddenly volunteered that he caused the prisoner's death by blocking
his breathing tube in a "mercy killing" after the stabbing.
Spencer was fired for trying to broker a back-channel deal that would have kept Trump from
overtly interfering in a review board that was deciding if the SEAL should be allowed to retire
with full honors and keep his SEAL Trident insignia.
But flouting military protocol, Trump intervened and granted him full clemency, calling him
"one of the ultimate fighters," infuriating Spencer.
In his letter acknowledging his termination by Esper, Spencer wrote that Trump's action was
in opposition to the Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Spencer
told CBS he didn't think Trump "really understands the full definition of a war
fighter."
"A war fighter is a profession of arms, and a profession of arms has standards that they
have to be held to and they hold themselves to," he said.
The SEAL in question was described by one
fellow SEAL as "toxic," a term used for a special kind of bad military leader who should
not be in command of any troops.
A
2012 Army manual describes toxic leadership as "a combination of self-centered attitudes,
motivations, and behaviors ... The toxic leader operates with an inflated sense of self-worth
and from acute self-interest. Toxic leaders consistently use dysfunctional behaviors to
deceive, intimidate, coerce, or unfairly punish others to get what they want for
themselves."
Trump's critics within the officer corps, who by law cannot publicly criticize their
commander in chief, argue that under that definition, Trump himself would be removed from
command were he serving in uniform instead of as president.
In the end, it was the deadly siege of the Capitol by Trump supporters, egged on by the
president's false claim of a stolen election, that proved too much for even some of the
president's most loyal servants.
"I respect the president. I worked for him. I've defended his policies, and there is much to
be proud of," said Alyssa Farah, who was a Pentagon spokeswoman before moving over to work in
the White House.
Farah told Fox News that the ransacking of Congress and the threat to lawmakers was "a
tragic day for our country" and, for her, "a breaking point."
"I have spent time in fragile democracies in other parts of the world, and our country
looked like those countries. That is not who we are. It is not what we stand for."
Those who have worked the closest with Trump and know him the best all describe him as a
driven man who is obsessed with winning.
"To Trump, life was a game, and all that mattered was winning," wrote his former longtime
fixer Michael Cohen in the forward to Disloyal , a book Trump's Justice Department
attempted to prevent from being published before the election.
"In these dangerous days, I see the Republican Party and Trump's followers threatening the
Constitution -- which is in far greater peril than is commonly understood -- and following one
of the worst impulses of humankind: the desire for power at all costs," Cohen wrote.
In testimony before Congress a year ago, Cohen prophetically warned, "Given my experience
working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020 that there will never be a
peaceful transition of power."
Jamie McIntyre is the Washington Examiner's senior writer on defense and national
security. His morning newsletter, "Jamie McIntyre's Daily on Defense," is free and available by
email subscription at dailyondefense.com.
"... "We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved", ..."
"... "We will never give up. We will never concede, it just doesn't happen." ..."
"... " Biden's America Would Be A Dystopian Hellhole ", ..."
"... Trump has not signed the Insurrection Act. ..."
"... 'trust the plan' is a never ending story psyop ..."
"... 'best is yet to come' .. ..."
"... to beam back to the mothership. ..."
"... the humans are out to get them ..."
"... it happening you watch just donate ..."
"... without symptoms. ..."
"... Amnesty run by US State Department representatives, funded by convicted financial criminals, and threatens real human rights advocacy worldwide. ..."
"... Yes yes yes – as if we didn't fucking know! ..."
"... YOU MEAN TO DESTROY THE NHS AND YOU WILL REPEAT THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER UNTIL IT IS DONE! ..."
The Trump Era is over after the incumbent announced in the day after
Wednesday's storming of the US Capitol that "My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly
and seamless transition of power", which was widely interpreted by friends and foes alike as
the tacit concession that he previously promised never to provide a little more than 24 hours
prior during his speech at the
Save America Rally .
At that event, he literally said that "We will never give up. We will never concede, it
doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved", yet completely changed his
tune following the day's tumultuous events and after mysteriously "going dark" for over 24
hours, during which time some speculate that he was forced by his enemies in the permanent
military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (" deep state ") to give
up the fight.
BETRAYING HIS BASE
This totally devastated his supporters who elected him primarily
for the purpose of executing his chief promise to "drain the swamp" that all of them so
deeply despise. They truly believed that he could irreversibly effect significant long-term
change to the way that America is run, something which Trump himself also sincerely thought he
could do as well, but he ultimately lacked the strength time and again to take the decisive
steps that were necessary in order to do so.
Thus, he ended up getting swallowed by the same "swamp" that he attempted to drain, which is
licking its lips after feasting on the political carcass that he's since become as a result of
his capitulation. For as much hope as he inspired in his supporters and the respect that many
of them still have for him, most of them are profoundly disappointed that he gave up and didn't
go down fighting.
That's not to say that the vast majority of them expected him to forcefully resist Biden's
impending inauguration, but just that they never thought they'd see the day where he publicly
capitulated after carefully cultivating such a convincing reputation among them as a fighter
who literally said a little more than 24 hours prior that "We will never give up. We will
never concede, it just doesn't happen."
This prompted an ongoing soul-searching process among the most sober-minded of them who
aren't indoctrinated with the cultish Q-Anon claims that Trump still has a so-called "master
plan" that he's preparing to implement after this latest "5D chess" move. It's over, the Trump
Era has ended, and the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement that he inspired is now at
risk of being declared a "
domestic terrorist " organization in the coming future.
TRUMP'S MOST FATAL POLITICAL
MISCALCULATION
" Biden's America Would Be A
Dystopian Hellhole ", like the author predicted a few months ago, and all of Trump's
supporters know that. Some had already resigned themselves to its seeming inevitability after
his efforts to legally reverse the contested results of the latest elections failed for a
variety of reasons that most of them attribute to the "swamp's" corruption, but they
nevertheless remained as positive as possible after having believed that their hero would go
down with them to the end.
None ever thought twice about his promise to "never give up, never concede", and they even
expected him to have to be escorted from the White House on 20 January, yet his tacit
concession is forcing many of them to re-evaluate their views about him in hindsight. Not only
is he going out with a whimper on the "deep state's" terms, but he never fully "drained the
swamp".
Trump's most fatal political miscalculation is that he thought that he could change the
system from the "inside-out" after symbolically -- yet importantly, not substantively -- taking
control of it as America's first modern-day "outsider" President. He immediately switched from
an "outsider" to an "insider" shortly after his inauguration by capitulating to the "deep
state's" demands that he fire former National Security Advisor Flynn, which was his "original
sin" that paved the way for all that would later follow.
Trump the self-professed "deal-maker" thought that he could strike a "compromise" with his
enemies through these means, but all that he did was embolden them to intensify their fake
news-driven efforts to oust him and continue sabotaging him from within through many of the
same "swamp" creatures that he naively continued to surround himself with.
RINOS + MSM =
TRUMP'S DEFEAT
The most reviled among them in the eyes of his base is "Javanka", the popular portmanteau of
Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and his daughter Ivanka. He continued listening to these
"Republicans In Name Only", or RINOs as many MAGA members describe them, as well as many others
such as those who still sit in Congress but pretended to be his friend just to win
re-election.
Furthermore, the influence that his former reality TV career had on him resulted in Trump
remaining obsessed with how his enemies might malign him in the Mainstream Media (MSM) for any
decisive moves that he took to smash the "deep state". This weakness of character proved to be
his greatest personal flaw since he should have followed his instincts instead of submitting to
the egoistic desire to be "liked" by his foes.
So influenced was he by the MSM that his enemies were able to employ the most basic
"reverse-psychology" tricks to manipulate him into "playing it safe" in his struggle against
the "deep state". They fearmongered since even before he entered office that he'd turn into a
so-called "dictator", yet he never seriously contemplated any such authoritarian moves in that
direction despite always having the possibility of utilizing the immense powers vested in him
by the Constitution to do so if he sincerely wanted.
His MAGA supporters passionately pleaded that he should have turned into his enemies' worst
nightmare by declaring at least limited martial law in response to the decades-long Hybrid War
of Terror on America finally going kinetic last summer after Antifa and "Black Lives
Matter" (BLM) orchestrated nationwide riots to oust him.
TRUMP'S THREE GREATEST
FAILURES
Bewildering his base, Trump also failed to revoke Article 230 despite now-proven fears that
it would empower Big Tech to censor him and
his supporters , nor did he thwart the Democrats' mail-in ballot and Dominion voting system
schemes which they argue ultimately led to them stealing the election.
Just as concerning was his decision to not stop the Democrat Governors from locking down
their populations for political reasons under the convenient pretext of COVID-19. The author
addressed all of these issues in his analysis published shortly after the election about why "
The Anti-Trump Regime
Change Sequence Is Worthwhile Studying ". Trump could have legally exercised
near-"dictatorial" powers to avert all of this and thus save America as his supporters see it,
yet time and again he failed to gather the strength needed to do so due to his deep personal
flaws.
THE HYBRID WAR ON AMERICA IS OVER
While Trump was unquestionably victimized by the "deep state" during his entire time in
office, he's no longer as much of a martyr as he used to be after suddenly giving up the fight
following Wednesday's storming of the US Capitol. He surrendered to the shock of his base, was
subsequently swallowed by the "swamp", and is now being mercilessly destroyed in an ominous
sign of what awaits the rest of the MAGA movement in the Biden-Kamala era.
Had he gone down fighting to the end and "never gave up" like he promised, then it would be
an altogether different story, but instead his over-hyped "deal-making" instincts got the best
of him at the very last minute and he foolishly thought that he could save himself by
capitulating to their demands. The "deep state" is now showing their "thanks" by censoring him
from social media and pushing for his impeachment.
The MAGA movement always believed that the country has already been at "war" for years even
though most couldn't articulate the hybrid nature of it like the author did in his piece last
summer about how " The Hybrid War Of Terror
On America Was Decades In The Making ".
They truly felt that Trump shared their threat assessment after he was viciously attacked by
the "deep state" from the second that he stepped onto the campaign trail, but it turned out
that he underestimated the threat even though his enemies never did. To the "deep state" and
their public Democrat proxies, this was always a "war" in its own way, which they never shied
away from expressing.
The supreme irony is that while Trump lambasted the "weak Republicans" in his Save America
Rally speech, he himself ultimately epitomized that very same weakness by later
surrendering.
THE "DEEP STATE" WON
His opponents know no limits and believe in classic Machiavellian fashion that "the ends
justify the means", whereas he thought that he could play by the rules -- and not even all of
them as was early explained by pointing out his refusal to employ the near-"dictatorial" powers
vested in him by the Constitution -- and still come out on top.
His naïveté will go down in history since it's what's most directly responsible
for him failing to fully recognize the seriousness of the "deep state's" no-holds-barred war on
him and the rest of America.
As a born-and-raised New Yorker, Trump perfected the art of slick talking, so much so that
he even managed to dupe his base into believing that he shared their threat assessment about
the decades-long Hybrid War of Terror on America. They fell for this charade since they
desperately wanted to believe that there was still some hope left.
There isn't, though, since the war is over and the "deep state" won once and for all. The "
Great Reset "/"
Fourth Industrial Revolution " brought about by
World War C is
barreling forward at full speed ahead, and practically every domestic accomplishment that Trump
has to his name will likely be reversed by Biden-Kamala during their first year in office,
especially since the "deep state's" Democrat proxies control all branches of government now
(remembering that the Supreme Court's supposed "conservative supermajority" really just
consists of RINOs as was proven by their refusal to hear his team's convincing election fraud
cases).
In fact, the only real "master plan" was that of the "deep state", which effectively
thwarted every one of Trump's moves and ultimately turned his supporters' "last hurrah" of a
mostly peaceful rally into the nail that'll now be hammered into the MAGA movement's
coffin.
It's extremely suspicious that the US Capitol was so poorly defended despite there being an
ongoing session of Congress on such an historic day and after weeks of preparation to ensure
the site's safety ahead of Trump's long-planned Save America March.
It's even more baffling that some of the police officers removed
the barricades and even
opened the doors to some of the protesters, which in hindsight suggests that the "deep
state" wanted to tempt the most "overly passionate" among them (to say nothing of suspected
provocateurs) into storming the site as the pretext for what followed.
The whole point in passively facilitating this scenario through the masterful exploitation
of crowd psychology was to lay the basis for a comprehensive nationwide crackdown against the
MAGA movement on the grounds that it's now "proven" to be a "domestic terrorist" group.
That explains the push behind impeaching Trump less than two weeks before he himself
acknowledged just the other day that he'll be leaving office after ensuring the "transition of
power".
Had he not surrendered, then he probably would still be a martyr to most of the MAGA
movement, but now he's just a palace hostage awaiting his highly publicized political execution
as the opening salvo of the "deep state's" Democrat-driven reprisals against his supporters in
the name of "defending against domestic terrorism". That, not whatever Q-Anon imagines, is the
real "master plan", and it succeeded.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Trump was swallowed by the "swamp" because he lacked the strength to drain it. Every MAGA
member needs to accept this harsh truth no matter how painful it might be. Time and again, he
failed to muster up the strength needed to meaningfully fulfill what many sincerely believed to
be his destiny.
This was due to his fatal political miscalculation of transforming from an "outsider" into
an "insider" in a doomed-to-fail attempt to change the system from within. He continued relying
on RINOs despite their proven unreliability. Trump's obsession with how his foes portrayed him
in the MSM also led to him never seriously countenancing the use of the near-"dictatorial"
powers vested in him by the Constitution to save America.
He pathetically surrendered after the "deep state's" "master plan" succeeded, and now he
can't even go down in history as a martyr.
Originally published on One World Press Jan
20, 2021 2:08 PM
Trump was part of the show nothing more nothing less. They had the goods on him for decades.
He made Izzrail grate again. That was about it. Notice Jizzlaid Maxwell, the Mossad kiddy
victim procurer watching her mark in the background of the video below from 92 as the king of
bankruptcy eyes the broads and "struts" his stuff.
Meanwhile Kill Bill Gates gets to poison Planet Sheeple and nobody ever questions his
association with Mossad kiddy porn snuff director, Epstein or Kill Bill's sojourns on Pedovore
Island. Anyone remember the CIA Operation Brownstone"? It's global and it's Satanic.
How could Trum 'drain the swamp' when he lives in the swamp. contributes to the swamp and
essentially is part of the swamp.
This story is sh!te. Trump is a swamp dweller.
Trump is just the same as all the other oligarchs and would be oligarchs. He is a rich,
privileged, white entrepreneur. His propaganda campaign in which he claimed to be on the side
of the poor and unemployed whites is just about the biggest lie which has been swallowed
wholesale since Goebbles was whitewashing the Nazi regime.
How you fools here can fall for this tripe has me absolutely beat.
Aethelred , Jan 13, 2021 10:17 AM
Trump in his political ineptitude resembles Jimmy Carter, an idealist incapable of
wielding power. Neither man had the gumption, nor the charisma (much the same thing) to win
over the apparatchiki. Both vain and selfish men (like all politicians), neither inspired
sufficient love nor fear to gather support, unlike Reagan or Clinton, both of whom exuded
calm confidence. Trump differs from Carter in that Trump's social incapacity manifests in
bombast, and Carter's in staged humility. Neither could convince the ruling classes, and so
were ushered away.
The elevation of Biden, an aged hack, is a signal the republic is finally overturned. The
feds not only can convict but now can elect and govern through a ham sandwich.
Blather , Jan 13, 2021 8:21 AM
Does the author know how to read Trump's speech or is he so BIAS as not to see?
Trump DID NOT capitulate. Read careFOOLY. It can go both waze.
ZenPriest , Jan 12, 2021 8:50 PM
Trump was never going to drain the swamp. He was a clown put in place by America's
masters, to keep an endless supply of material for their media and to stir up hatred among
citizens.
It's funny because citizens should be uniting against the puppeteers. Or they would be if
they knew they even existed, or knew they were being played.
S Cooper , Jan 13, 2021 2:47 AM Reply to
ZenPriest
"Quite a number already know this. That number keeps growing with each passing day. Got
Debs?"
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and
I'm here to help." Remember that line? That was Ronnie Raygun back in 1986, with one of his
(or his ghost writers') versions for 'draining the swamp' then, getting government off our
backs, and blah, blah, blah. Agitprop thrown the masses so the corporate state could get down
to bizzness as usual in dispossessing 'we the people' by rolling back government programs for
social welfare and building up wealth and power for elites via the MIC and Wall Street
(complementary to Iron Bitch Thatcher's neoliberal programs for a greater fascism in
Britain).
Hardly anything original, such marketing ads. Politricking fronts of the ruling class have
been campaigning before and after getting into office with noble lies of populism covering
for their brands of treachery as long as the fraudulence of capitalist democracy and
representative government have been around. In the post-WWII era of Pox Americana, the U$
CEOs for the Fortune 500 routinely have disguised their institutional role in managing the
empire under cover of brands of reform that keep promising power to the people with one hand
while taking it away with the other.
But when it comes to the greatest show on earth, it's the words attributed to P.T. Barnum
that there's a sucker born every minute (or at least every election season) which ring
truest. So now we've got the ringmasters retiring the Donald and installing good ole Creepy
Joe to 'build back better' on behalf of the Great Reset. That's after Swamp Thang has played
his part as dictator of distraction overseeing such achievements as the greatest robbery of
the commons in human history and launch of technofascism under Operation Warp(ed) Speed, all
thanks to a global coup with which he's been entirely complicit. And his manufactured base of
true believers still carry on with the covidiocy as much as the controlled opposition of the
faux left.
The more things change, the more they stay the same (only worse!).
Chris , Jan 12, 2021 5:14 PM
The Q group are patriots with access to a quantum computer able to untangle timelines from
a possibility/probability vortex.
Their movement was designed to awaken many individuals with key roles to play in the real
Operation Warpspeed.
The majority of these folks had some connection to the military or other branches of
government including the police.
In 2012 nearly all technology, ancient or more modern, was suddenly rendered non
functional.
The Mayans were obviously dead right with their calender.
The race was on to gain absolute supremacy in the prediction game.
All major stakeholders have access to quantum computing, but the US has the upper hand.
The true value of quantum computers lies not in the task of pure number crunching, but in its
ability to predict probabilities of complex situations.
The quantum computer exposes the most probable timelines and delivers the results in
numerical form that correspond to actual events and dates/times .
Igby MacDavitt , Jan 12, 2021 3:43 PM
"The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you're going to lose, because somebody
has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do
wins."
― I.F. Stone
Laurence Howell , Jan 12, 2021 12:42 PM
President Trump has declared a State of Emergency in the District of Columbia.
White House
OW look the fruitcakes and cult follower spent another new moon being juiced , Trump
has not signed the Insurrection Act. BUT BUT BUT
Cult of BIG disclosure keep watching.donate huge Arrests and stay tuned keep watching
it happening – keep watching- it happening soon, BIG disclosure huge Arrests . it
Happening soon psyop AND distraction
Simple simon and Q nonsense told another lie to the sheep
Laurence Howell , Jan 12, 2021 12:16 PM
President Trump has signed the Insurrection Act.
YouDontCareAboutGrandma , Jan 12, 2021 12:47 PM Reply to
Laurence Howell
Proof? And don't link to Simon Parkes' YouTube channel. He's provided no evidence
whatsoever for his claims. He says he talks to aliens and "Q" on the telephone.
Gosh, evrn more baffling and scarey and reminescent of 1963, never seen footage of the
murder of Ms. BABBIT showing collusion between police and antifa agitators, taken by an
independent Japanese reporter!
Great article but consider how many thousands of people the Islamist extremist, Erdogan of
Turkey, had to fire and imprison, to dismantle the positive Deep State structure Attaturk put
in place to keep that country secular? Functioned admirably for many years.
DimlyGlimpsed , Jan 12, 2021 1:06 AM
Dems enthusiatically voted from Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary and Biden. All corrupt and
compromised. Repubs voted for Bush Jr., Romney, and Trump. All corrupt and compromised. Both
accuse the other of corruption, dishonesty and hypocrisy. Both are right, of course.
Reality, though, is not possible to perceive when limited to a diet of mainstream news.
Neither is it a trivial task to navigate the rough seas online disinformation.'
Unless one is privy to big-picture high-level (and secret) information, one is left to
attempt to identify and assemble a complex jigsaw puzzle using one's own sleuthing and
intuition skills.
Common people without inside knowledge can still interpret the world, however. War is evil,
and those who advocate war have been seduced by evil. Kindness and generosity are among the
highest values. On the other hand, those who are selish and cruel pollute our world. Etc,,
etc.
Let us keep in mind that the most evil cloak themselves in the garb of peace, kindness and
generosity, in order to dine on sheep who wishfully and willfully refused to judge behavior
rather than be seduced with addictive slogans. Let us also keep in mind that no leaders can
remain in power without the compliance of the rest of us.
Any of should be able to recognize Joe Biden as evil. His "track record" is one of
corruption, budget cutting, war and authoritarian legislation. And Trump? One of the great
mysteries of human civilization is that Trump, the ultimate swap creature, was elected by
promising to "clean the swamp".
That is fairly accurate but Trump did push back against America's China Class and the CCP
-- more than you can say for commies like the Bidens, Obamas, Clintons, Bushes, etc.
Trump's America First Hoax: Trump is an Israeli agent. He put #Mossad asset #JaredKushner
in charge of infiltration of US Intelligence and Defense. Bidens are Chinese agents? Charles
Kushner (Jared's father), is an agent of #AnbangInsurance, a Chinese Communist front
group.
Jams O'Donnell , Jan 13, 2021 6:54 PM Reply to
REvail
All US presidents, vice-presidents, chiefs of staff, etc are Israeli agents, or more
accurately, are in effect the same thing.
Jams O'Donnell , Jan 13, 2021 6:53 PM Reply to
Sgt_doom
"commies like the Bidens, Obamas, Clintons, Bushes, etc."
If you think that the above mentioned capitalist clowns are "commies", then you really,
REALLY, need to get an education, because clearly you don't know your arse from your
elbow.
Igby MacDavitt , Jan 12, 2021 3:46 PM Reply to
DimlyGlimpsed
"Trump, the ultimate swap creature " I do not think you have any idea what the 'swamp' is
to make such a claim.
Otherwise, a great post.
Lost in a dark wood , Jan 12, 2021 12:40 AM
Note: I drafted this as a response, but the person is not worthy of a reply, so I'll post
it here instead.
--
I've always said that Q is a deep-state operation. It's the NSA, military intelligence,
etc. It's just a different deep state to the CIA/MI6 deep state. And I've always said that
people should at least know what "the plan" is. They should know what it is because it's by
far the most coherent explanation for what is happening now, and for what has happened over
the last four years.
A couple of years ago I thought a deal had been struck between the opposing factions, and
it was all going to be wound down. But I changed that view after the Covid911, attempted
colour revolution. The overwhelming view on this site, from contributors and posters, was
that Trump would fall in June 2020. I was one of only a handful of people saying Trump would
survive.
I can't predict the details of what's happening now, but I think Trump will survive this
because:
a) he has the ammunition
b) it would make no sense to go this far and not see it through
c) even though it seems to be going to the precipice, it still fits a coherent plan
I've only recently started following Simon Parkes, but in his latest update he claims to
have spoken to the real Q. Of course, as anybody who's been following Q posts would know,
this would breach the "no outside comms" principle.
I'm not at all impressed. Appeared on the scene coincidental with Gen McInerney and all
the misinformation about "hammer and scorecard" which was a blatant distraction from clear
and convincing evidence of election fraud.
Parkes does far too much, "I could have told you beforehand but then I'd have had to kill
you."
Your on the ball wow from 1 psyop to another Now your following simon charlatan
parkes.
HE gets excepted into the Q nonsense and trump Savior psyop and becames one of there star
leaders over night.
Do you not do basic checks on who you start to worship?? or do they have to say code words
like Q and trump maga and its like there chosen to lead you.
Negative, far too silly and cartoonish and tracks back to a Filipino Maoist group directed
by the CCP!
Asylum , Jan 11, 2021 7:34 PM
We've been manipulated into fighting against each other over trivial differences to divert
us from the fact that we're all in the same boat.
Lost in a dark wood , Jan 11, 2021 6:33 PM
Andrew Korybko: "That, not whatever Q-Anon imagines, is the real "master plan", and it
succeeded."
Okay, I'm trying to figure this out. With regard specifically to this thread, are we
allowed to post direct links to Q posts? For instance, Q has stated explicitly that there is
no "Qanon" (#4881). Instead, there is Q and there are anons. I personally think this is
debatable, and that Qanon is a collective name for a highly amorphous movement and method of
enquiry. Furthermore, that movement and method predates Q and was to some extent co-opted by
Q. The movement will also outlive Q, though it may retain the name. As a movement, Qanon
stands in opposition to the hierarchical, hive-mind vacuity of the Rationalists and
Neo-Platonists. In short, Qanon is Blakean. Welcome to Jerusalem!
We do not want either Greek or Roman models if we are but just & true to our own
imaginations, those Worlds of Eternity in which we shall live forever; in Jesus our Lord.
– William Blake https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Milton_(excerpts)/Preface
Q Alerts is back up so I'll try again. The following is a critical part of "the plan".
--
Q (Oct 17, 2020):
I'm going to bring the whole diseased, corrupt temple down on your head. It's gonna be
Biblical.
Enjoy the show! https://qalerts.app/?n=4884
Please – can we have more of Andrew Karybko. I've seen him on Peter Lavelle. For
such an acutely well informed young chap about international politics, he demonstrates an
equally rigorous understanding about Trumps psyche.
Andrew Korybko is probably one of the best geo-political analysts I've come across and his
depth of knowledge across all continents shines through. A very warm and engaging person.
He runs a site called OneWorld Press. Recently accused by mainstream media and The Daily
Beast of being GRU agents. Well if it is, they are most measured and balanced in the history
of intelligence services.
Your be saying that on the way to the concentration camps!!! 'trust the plan' is a never ending story psyop
Similar to the 'best is yet to come' ..
you trumpsters have your own Down Syndrome language.
WWG1WGA, another bunch of devotees similar to a cult who will not except there guru is a
oppressor
mikael , Jan 11, 2021 1:09 PM
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the
things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."Reinhold Niebuhr
Pardon moi for the lenght.
I dont know whats with people this days, the shere avalange of bollocks is baffling, the
inability to conect the dots to what was, the past, to the present is making me think there
must be something, hehe, with the narrative, or should we say in this uh . conpiracy tinfoil
hat wearing days, in the tap water, and the rethotic, about Trump, I have my issues, and I
have never been quiet about them, but then to whine about things when most of it have been
inplace before Trump came into the WH, incl children in gages to wars, Obamalama started more
wars than any other American president ever, with Hitlary the Beast from Little Rock beside,
after Her husband stole Social sec and now, witch could be massive, is completely eradicated
out of existence, and the sactions, etc, most of them are just continuations of existing
systems, we can always blame Trump for something, but please, do know the difference and dont
just throw bollocks because of the people whom wanted change, when Obamalama said it, you
belived, and what happened, again, he pissed upon you all, and have since laughed all the way
to the bank, the economic crashes, the insane austeritys, the bailins and outs, you name it
to color revolutions.
This isnt to defend Trump, for me, He was more an castrat, singing but otherwise balless, but
also tied, unable to move, and been relentlessly attacked by those that defenses the past
witch in no way was better.
Then we have the eh .. storming?, and if you look at videos, what sticks out is, what
storming, some gass clouds, yea, means what, an Cop throving an gass can, but take an look
for your self, it was never in any way what the MSM wants you to belive, and the army of
people crawling all over the sites wants you to persive, along with profanitys about people
whom did suported Trump, because they hoped for change, you cant attack them, maybe for been
a bit naive, but one thing shal be the thing Trump did, exposed them all, in an way witch is
unpresedented despite His flaws, nobody have done that in this level, He exposed them all,
and if you havent gotten it yet, you have an problem, nobody else, incl the people whom did
their duty as free citizens of the USA, did the protesting.
Rioting, again, what riot, the worst thing I can come up with, after watching some videos, is
minore, a window, probably by the AntiFags/BLMs/eh leftards?, and one man whom ran off with
an piece of the furiture, nothing else, and if I drag that further, maybe the stormers should
have wiped their shoos off before entering the Hill, stepping on the fine carpets on the
floor in the hallway, what an horrible crime, right.
What storming, do you see anything, do enlighten us.
So, I know I am pushing the attention span to the limit.
BUT, I have thru the years found out that Americans, not that I want to call em stupid, but
regarding world poltics, more infantile, naive, brainwashed to such an extent thru the
decades/centurys of propaganda, where the various Gov always have had an enemy, it have
variated, from muslims etc to what it have become to day, domestic terrorism aka
conservatives whatever that means, and not only in the MSM but also thru an army of so called
Alternative MSM, witch have feed upon this narratives and played upon this, but overall, gone
the same erant as the Gov wanted them to go, and witch have resulted in wars upon wars, and
stil some want more wars, like the broad attack line on Iran, just to give you one ex to the
strangling of others, like western sahara to the Palestinians.
Then we have the new enemy, in mainly the so called alternative ugh .. rightwinged? whatever
whom sommehow manages to blame everything on socialism, yea, apart from the weather because
thats Putins fault, despite that, I found Putin to be an scoundrel, the Russian Gov rotten to
its core, that dont mean I hate Russians but there will always be those that cant
differentiate at all.
Whom is the "enemy" Americans, socialism, China, Russia, Iran, huh.
I have saxed this from P. L. Gonzalez.
Social media networks, payment processors, airlines, hotels, streaming services, and online
vendors are strangling people based on ideology but TPUSA is still complaining about
"socialism." Burn your money or donate it to TPUSA, it's the same thing.
Yup, briliantly summarised everything in some few lines, and why, do you refuse to see
them when they are right infront of your very own eyes, and yet, you blame some imaginary
enemy witch have nothing to do with this coup, its an class war, its the oligarcs, the robber
barons, witch have an army of buttspreaders in the capitol Hill to their abuse, and this
bitches do whatever they are told, do notice how the RepubliCONs threw you under the buss, is
that to the Chines fault.
So, I hope the Americans whom stil have some parts of their bran fuctional, can notice the
difference, in Norway we have the same problem, but we are an so called socialistic nation,
but we are held hostages by the same pack of scums that is plundering your nation and
resources, and have nothing but contempt for everyone of us, and an Gov that do whatever they
want and whom are we then to blame, the Hottentots, Maoris, communism is an tool for social
unrest, and when they have done their job, thrown under the buss, because the PTB wants us to
fight each others, as long we do, they will win.
Unite and you have an chanse, if not, well, I am old, and my life span expectanse isnt that
long anymore and I will not have to live in the totalistaian regime that comes, but the sole
reason for me to even bother, is for our children, and their children.
And to all of you whom went to the protest, you have my deepest respect.
It truly is an war, against the dark forces.
You all need to take an stand.
Be the light.
peace
Igby MacDavitt , Jan 12, 2021 3:53 PM Reply to
mikael
We have the same problem worldwide. Singling out and scorning the Americans is simply
divisive. It has always been the People against the Oppressors. The Americans are people and
have Oppressors bearing down on them like the rest of us. There is a cancer that needs to be
removed lest it devour us all.
Chris , Jan 11, 2021 10:57 AM
The overtone of Korybko's writing is excessively defeatist. When the "Deep State" applies
such overt tools to steal the U.S. election, imposes censorship, labels millions of American
citizens as potential "domestic terrorists", silences the still incumbent U.S. President,
resorts to provocation, deprives Americans of essential liberties through Covid, curfews or
other bogus emergencies, then it means that the establishment behind the "Deep State" is
scared. Scared not as much of Donald Trump as scared of You – the People. I know it
since I live in a central European country with a very bitter experiences with dicatorship.
When the power starts to resort to an open forgery and uses coercion or force it reveals its
weakness, not strength. Its power derives only from the passive attitude of majority of
population, nothing more. What this so called 'liberal elite' in America hopes for is to
return to the good old days, when the whole Middle America remained voiceless, silent,
isolated, without any leadership or political representation. Now it is their objective to
'legally' separate the 'progressive America' from the 'populist' one and they might even
inspire separation, violence or secessionist moves to achieve it. But MAGA movement must not
play this delusional vision of retreat to entrench in false sense of local security. That's
what the 'Deep State' wants to achieve – to herd the popular opposition into their home
arrests and their privacy soon to be possibly separated by walls, sanitary wards, wired
fences or a new Indian reservation. Americans would never win their Independence by acting in
defense only, by retreating to 'wait and see' tactics as Korybko suggests. What must be done
is to recapture Your state institutions that have been stolen and turned into a travesty of
American political tradition. Before that happens a common awareness is needed that those who
appear to rule as a new 'government' are just a tiny bunch of criminals who try to impress
the whole world that their power has no limits, that they monopolised the mass media and
economy, that they are invincible. Do not let this delusion of 'Deep State' victory to
dominate Your outlook. Yes, I agree that Trump failed as a leader in a time of crisis but
MAGA (or however we call it) but all the people who really care for America need to maintain
representation, authority and leadership. They shouldn't accept a comfortable fantasy that
sooner or later the 'Deep State' would crumble under its own weight and then by some miracle
a new movement would be born. If Trump indicates that 'its only the beginning' then his
supporters should join him in any action he offers. All Republican politicians, conservative
or libertarian societies, local communities, state legislatures or any other active group
must be engaged in this action. Struggle for political freedom always involves risk and
mistakes. Trump certainly made a lot of them. But it is the People who are sovereign, not any
office, institution or technological dicatorship. When the Constitution, the congressional
debate and civil liberties are ruined by 'elite' it is the responsibility of the People to
act in emergency to restore law, order and liberty. The 'Deep State' perfectly understands
that after the four years of Trump and the emergence of trumpism as a social-political fact
there can not be any turning back to the business as usual. Not under normal and peaceful
circumstances. That's why they are so frightened and act in panic. That's why they impose
health and security 'emergencies' to incapacitate the population, to make it superfluous and
useless. We saw it in totalitarian regimes.
The world needs the U.S. not as an imperial power but as an example of well established
social contract, human liberty and hope for a better future. The European 'elites' are in
revolt against their people too but here we won't have a chance for any anti-establishment
president to support us. That's why in Europe we still believe that not all has been lost in
America.
Laurence Howell , Jan 11, 2021 12:17 PM Reply to
Chris
Lt. General Thomas Mcinerney,
"special forces imbedded in Antifa rioters have Nancy Pelosi's laptop"
laptop always the laptop it on the laptop he/she left the laptop at
it etc etc et was found there# etc etc etc bullshit
laptop psyop used as much as the immaculate passport psyop found at the scene of crime in a
burning inferno it aimed at idiots
Laurence Howell , Jan 12, 2021 10:37 AM Reply to
Asylum
Are you saying that Hunter Biden's laptop and the released information that it contains is
of no value?
Conflating 911 with the current conspiracies is not helpful. This would need an article of
longer length and written by an unbiased observer which you are not.
Instead of saying etc. etc. bullshit, why not explain why this is your position?
Or does this not fit in with your soundbite posting?
Jacques , Jan 11, 2021 9:41 AM
Historically speaking, the problem with the "deep state" is essentially that the current
system has corrupted itself to a point where it is so far from what is claimed, or perhaps
appears to be, that there is no way to fix it from within by rebuilding it, by "draining the
swamp".
Klaus "Cockroach" Schwab et al understand this, hence the Great Reset, a new vision for
the future. Of course, they want a future for themselves, but that's another story.
Even if Trump were entirely sincere in his effort to "drain the swamp", he had nothing to
offer apart from some vague anachronistic concept of Making America Great Again. What the
fuck is that supposed to mean anyway, eh? The only thing he had behind him was populism which
in itself is an empty concept.
Like it or not, a change will only come if people formulate a new philosophy, ideology,
and if the new ideology is proposed and embraced on a broad scale. Ideally in a non-violent
fashion.
Right now, there is fuck all, people are still stuck on all sorts of left-right bullshit
dichotomies, (fake) democracy, the games that have been played for decades if not hundreds of
years.
If you ask me, it would be nice if the ideology of the future was loosely based on Hayek's
spontaneous order.
If Trump can pull something off this week or early next, the new plan is already waiting
in the wings. It's called Nesara/Gesara. It's a new economic system not based on a debt based
system.
rechenmacher , Jan 12, 2021 3:45 PM Reply to
Thom1111
Heard that one before. Fraud.
Thom1111 , Jan 12, 2021 7:09 PM Reply to
rechenmacher
It's a real framework plan, it's just whether it can be implemented is the question.
Igby MacDavitt , Jan 12, 2021 3:57 PM Reply to
Jacques
"Like it or not, a change will only come if people formulate a new philosophy, ideology,
and if the new ideology is proposed and embraced on a broad scale. Ideally in a non-violent
fashion."
Sure. So we the people have had centuries or more to figure the answer out. Repeating the
dilemma is not enlightening. Idealism has no voice with tyrants.
ZenPriest , Jan 11, 2021 8:53 AM
All this talk of the 'deep state' yet no one can name them. Lol.
Thom1111 , Jan 11, 2021 3:04 PM Reply to
ZenPriest
you must have been born yesterday. In America it's the alphabet agencies but obviously all
runs back to Rothschild and the Vatican.
In Covid-19 Period, Honest online career from home, Now A Days Scam is every where but
don't worry , every one is not a cheater, very reliable and profitable site. Thousands
peoples are making good earning from it. For further detail visit the link no instant money
required free signup and information
𝚠𝚠𝚠.𝚓𝚘𝚋𝚜𝟷𝟼.𝚝𝚔
The 6 January protest march clearly shows that the majority of Trump voters had already
given up on Trump so did not join the protest. There was originally talk of a possible one
million people attending, it didn't get anywhere close. If half the nation was still behind
Trump, this was a very puzzling showing.
Trump just did not have what it takes, or was not really trying, to ruthlessly cut out the
cancer of corruption in government. History will show that he was a weak leader who allowed
the deep state to distract him to the extent that he never did anything of note other than to
reveal, through no action of his own, how extreme is the corruption that he had promised to
drain.
The Democrat distractions, paid for by their oligarch owners, showed the world that
extreme corruption is running the USA. Even the most loyal Democrats must be puzzled by the
current purges and threats of extreme centralised thought control, the arrogance of the swamp
now that it has gotten rid of the peoples' man.
To his credit, I am still willing to believe that Trump tried to do the right thing.
Although the author is trying to place Trump as a coward who resigned, going back on his
word, I think this is not how his original supporters see him. From what I can see, the
majority of his original supporters still support him and see him as a figurehead, but they
recognise that he doesn't have the skills to do the job. He is not a coward, he did not cave
in, he recognised, probably because of the low protest numbers, that he did not have what is
takes to continue the fight, he could see that his base had already given up on him. He is
still a figurehead in the patriot movement. He may have lost the far right, but he still has
a lot of centre-ground supporters.
I disagree with your claim that the majority of supporters had already given up on him. It
was the middle of the week. People have jobs. It was a significant turn out. People
understand what is at stake. I would not place the blame for failure on Trump. He is amazing
in so many ways.
I just don't understand here how anybody can believe Trump was sincere in wanting to
change anything: he's a narcissistic bully in it for his own benefit and that of his
offspring. Fighting corruption??? Come on!
Igby MacDavitt , Jan 12, 2021 4:06 PM Reply to
Carmpat
The mere fact that hundreds and hundreds of treasonous actors throughout government and
business have been clearly and openly revealed through the process started by Trump is a damn
good start.
"What is going in DC right now is like what went on at Jonestown after Jim Jones went
crackers. Except instead of cyanide laced Kool-Aid they are going to use 'Doc' Billy Eugenics
EUTHANASIA DEATH SHOT to off the 'faithful'. If only Billy and they would just off themselves
and leave the rest of the World out of it."
" EUTHANIZE the World! Corporate Fascism and Eugenics forever."
"Time now for Na n zi Pelosi, Chuckie 'Upchuck' Schumer and all the rest of the war
criminal gang of CORPORATE FASCIST FABIAN EUGENICISTS to beam back to the
mothership. They see insurrections, rebellions and conspiracies everywhere. They believe
the humans are out to get them . They are going full Jim Jones. "
"Also Nasty Na n zi should lay off the hooch. It is beginning to have a deleterious and
harmful effect upon the sad thing's cognitive faculties and behavior."
Sgt Oddball , Jan 10, 2021 10:35 PM
I *Hope* they name the next Carrier after him – USS Donald J. Trump – CVN
83
😉
Sgt Oddball , Jan 10, 2021 10:38 PM Reply to
Sgt Oddball
- Nickname: – 'Big Don'
Voxi Pop , Jan 10, 2021 9:57 PM
https://worldchangebrief.webnode.com INSURRECTION
ACT "PROBABLY" SIGNED –
Military In Control of the US, Under Commander In Chief Trump/
Updates Will Follow Throughout The Day
Cal , Jan 10, 2021 9:56 PM
.
Sgt Oddball , Jan 10, 2021 9:26 PM
"Captain America's been torn apart,
Now he's a court jester with a broken heart,
He said, "Turn me around and take me back to the start",
"I must be losing my mind!" Are you blind?!
– I've seen it all a *Million Times* "
You are going to be very surprised. See what happens.
David Meredith , Jan 10, 2021 9:08 PM Reply to
Sukma Dyk
I was just about to post a comment saying: It's not over yet, but you beat me to it! Well
done.
John Smith , Jan 11, 2021 6:17 PM Reply to
Sukma Dyk
Why the secrecy? If you know summit then spill.
Jacques , Jan 10, 2021 8:49 PM
I don't know what Trump's intentions were, and I couldn't care less.
From where I'm standing, it appears that he was elected on a wave of populism, which
seemed to be an alternative to the "liberal democracy" fakery, the swamp. An interesting
presentation of that was here ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA50BE7d1X8
). IMHO, Bannon kicked Frum's butt in that debate.
It would appear that populism was a big enough threat for the "swamp" to unleash four
years of a hate campaign against Trump, possibly, probably culminating with COVID. Hard to
believe that it was a coincidence.
Be it as it may, and allowing for the possibility that this or that or the other thing has
been staged this way or that way, Trump's presidency has certainly set things in motion,
woken up people. Had somebody more slick been elected, the transition to the dystopia that
seems to be in the pipeline would probably have been less noticeable, perhaps not noticeable
at all. With the shitshow that has been going down since last February, all of a sudden there
is a public debate. Perhaps misinformed, perhaps mislead, but there is a debate nevertheless.
Will it result in something positive? Hard to say, hopefully.
Bottom line, Trump's presidency has been historically a good thing.
YouTube_censors_unfortuna , Jan 11, 2021 10:05 AM Reply to
Jacques
Covid 19 was DECIDED? But of course, yes, it's just a detail .. lol
Researcher , Jan 10, 2021 8:45 PM
Turns out the Viking Guy aka QAnon Shaman aka Jake Angeli aka Jacob Anthony Chansley aka
Actor and self proclaimed "Super Soldier" pals around with Bernard Kerik and Rudy Giuliani
when he takes time off from memorizing the latest NSA script:
Lost in a dark wood , Jan 10, 2021 9:42 PM Reply to
Researcher
Oh look, a photo at some sort of book-signing type event. I'll file it alongside the one
of Oswald and Mother Teresa.
Lost in a dark wood , Jan 11, 2021 4:37 PM Reply to
Researcher
BTW: if that's what Bernard Kerik looks like when he's "palling around", you definitely
wouldn't want to fall out with him!
James Meeks , Jan 10, 2021 10:10 PM Reply to
Researcher
Haven't you figured out yet that QAnon is an intelligence agency psyop based in the type
of magical thinking that will get you killed and lose the nation? If not, you really aren't
qualified to participate in what is currently hitting us. The enemy has your number. This is
obviously a photo op staged by the security state to feed the false narrative created around
QAnon.
Researcher , Jan 10, 2021 11:23 PM Reply to
James Meeks
Can you read? Read what I wrote again. Read it enough times until you understand.
QAnon = Q Group NSA
Nothing is hitting you except the Democrats and Republicans together against the citizens.
That's not new.
"If there was a non WAR RACKETEER CORPORATE FASCIST in SHAM DEMOCRACY USA for whom to vote
and the REPUBLICRATS did not FAKE the counts and rig the SHAM elections WE THE PEOPLE might.
Where is a Eugene Victor Debs when the world needs one?"
"Soon that is not going to be an issue, however. There will be no need for SHAM ELECTIONS
after Billy EugenIcs and the CORPORATE FASCIST FABIAN EUGENICISTS cull all the untermenschen
and useless eaters with their EUTHANASIA DEATH SHOT."
"Just can not give up the opportunity for a good lead up (segue'). In good faith and in
all seriousness, thanks for providing it."
Cmiller , Jan 12, 2021 5:27 AM Reply to
Researcher
Masonic handshake
Dayne , Jan 10, 2021 8:40 PM
Peasants in 19th-century Russia clung to a notion of the Czar as a benevolent, fatherly
figure. Even when he rained misery and oppression down on them, it was only because he was
"misinformed", "surrounded by bad guys", etc.
It makes sense: Those were desperate, illiterate people living in misery. Hoping against
hope was all they had. But why would anyone in 2021 think of Trump in essentially the same
way is beyond me. An entrenched military-industrial-media-psychiatric-intelligence system,
hundreds of years in the making and with untold trillions in funding, just stood by as a
Robin-Hood-type hero and people's champion rose to take the Oval Office? Sorry. Trump might
as well sprout wings and fly.
Sgt Oddball , Jan 10, 2021 10:10 PM Reply to
Dayne
Thanx for your comment, Dayne – I've been trying to put this into words, and as I'm
autistic, I could frankly, literally *Sperg'-out* over this, right now
- TL:DR version is this, tho': – Ever wonder why 'Populism' is such a dirty word for
the establishment and their MSM bullhorn? – The argument I've heard thus far generally
goes like the South Park underpants gnome's plan for world domination: – Phase 1:
Popular Uprising (aka: 'Civil Unrest') Phase 2: ? . Phase 3: Fascist 'Strongman' Dictatorship
– Why is that?
- Also that we're *Too Stoopid*(/ie: Self-Absorbed) – Like the Mud-Pickin' peasants
in Monty Python' Holy Grail
- I would suggest 2 reasons for this:
- 1.) The Davostanis (Global Banksters/Oligarchs) never *merely* back the *winning horse*
in the race, – In fact they back *every* horse that they *allow* to run (ergo: Trump
was an Establishment-groomed *Stalking Horse* )
- 2.) The Davostanis (again), have *long since* seen to it that *most everyone*, from
birth onwards, is psychologically conditioned, first with childhood myths and fairy-tales
about Charming Princes and Fair Princesses, then with religio-spiritual 'adult' myths and
fairy-tales about (In Judeo-Christian terms) Messianic, White-Knight champion/rescuer types
who, if *we would only* put our lives and our *Utmost Faith* in their holy, heaven-sent
hands, would *Save Us All* from all the terrible, terrible *Mess We've All Made* for
ourselves down here on Earth, by collectively *Shitting The Bed*
*Obviously*, this is *All* just so much *Childish Nonsense*, and, more to the point, a
*Writ-Large Con-Job*
- Cutting to the chase: – The 'Great-Man' theory of history is *Bunk* – Always
*Has Been*, always *Will Be*
If you're still "Holding Out For A Hero", I invite you to stare *Long And Hard* into the
nearest available mirror, *Take A DEEP Breath*, and then go out and *Elect Yourself* to the
office – *Better Yet*, elect your family, elect your friends, elect your neighbors,
elect *Everyone*
- And then let's *Do This Shit* – *Together*!
James Meeks , Jan 10, 2021 10:23 PM Reply to
Dayne
It could have something to do with the fact that Biden is backed by every billionaire
member of the Davos gang of criminals getting ready to use this event, coupled with medical
martial law, to stage the "great reset" scheme. A wet dream of Malthusian eugenecists like
Faucci & Gates, since it includes a drastic reduction in world population aka genocide of
the elderly, vulnerable, poor and non compliant. This Globalist Technocracy will be led by
un-elected bankers and corporate CEO's effectively ending any form of Democracy planet wide.
MSM mockingbirds are completing the programming of the public to make Casey's statement to
Reagan ring true" We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the
American public believes is wrong."
Ow look Simon one trick pony parkes been laughed at and ridiculed and busted for his many
many many many lies and it happening you watch just donate psyop
gets excepted into the Q nonsense and trump Savior psyop and became s one of there
leaders!!!
doesn't anyone go back 5 years and do basic check on thsoes they watch and then make idols
of them.
fools follow fools
Mike , Jan 10, 2021 8:15 PM
Trump was never going to be Ameica's hero. He was played to depict America as a fascist,
racist, neo-nazi country that needs to be saved by the Left aka Joe Biden/Kamala Harris. The
Left can now "save us all" from the "damage" caused by the MAGA movement and Trump. They can
do this through heavily increased mass surveillance and what is essentially imprisonment, to
make sure that we don't fall victim to the "domestic terrorism" that is represented by Trump
and his fan base.
David Meredith , Jan 10, 2021 9:10 PM Reply to
Mike
saved by the left? The left has been selling out the US to the globalist agenda for the
last 20 years (in power or out). Trump is not finished restoring America to a country that
doesn't sell out to China.
"Left-Center-Right" seems that paradigm is a tad askew. It is more like a top to bottom
pyramid [scheme/racket]. The CORPORATE FASCIST OLIGARCH MOBSTER PSYCHOPATH SLAVE MASTERS
sitting on their gold platinum thrones at the very top of the tower/pyramid and all their
prole slave victims, WE THE PEOPLE (HUMANITY) in the mud at the base. The PSYCHOS will say or
do anything to get the prole slaves at each others throats. IF WE ARE FIGHTING AMONG
OURSELVES WE ARE NOT FIGHTING THEM."
Well, being saved by the left was a sarcastic comment. And Trump is clearly done with
"restoring America" because it was never his to restore, let alone him conceding to the left
after the Capitol "riots".
falcemartello , Jan 11, 2021 3:53 AM Reply to
David Meredith
@ David
The left is as left as my right GONAD
Martin Usher , Jan 10, 2021 10:12 PM Reply to
Mike
Biden/Harris "the left"? Surely you're joking? These two are conservatives, in another
timeline they'd be Republicans. What they have going for them is they, like many Americans,
believe in the Constitution of the United States, about what the country is and what its
trying to acheve. It strives to build "a more perfect union".
This the fundamenal error many people made about the Deep State. I've no doubt that
there's a fom of Deep State out there, an ingrained conservative streak in the bureaucracy,
because there is in all bureaucracies. But the real Deep State is all of us, its every last
person who believes in the system, in the American form of democracy and the principles upon
which the nation was founded. There are innumerable personal interpretations of exactly what
this means but the sum total is the United States.
Trump, MAGA and the modern GoP represent 'capture', the idea that the capture of the state
can be turned to personal profit. In doing so Trump and his enablers degraded the notion of
what the US is and why it exists. This is what's caused the backlash, its not 'the left' or
'socialism'.
Sgt Oddball , Jan 10, 2021 10:54 PM Reply to
Martin Usher
"Biden/Harris "the left"? Surely you're joking?"
- The proverbial 'Overton Window' has, at this point, collapsed to a quantum singularity,
about a nothingth of a planck length wide
- Prepare for *Teh Great Suck*!
Peanut butter wolf , Jan 10, 2021 8:11 PM
You seriously think Trump was genuinly elected? All the points you make show obviously he
was a puppet and psy-op of the deepstate from the very beginning.
The deepstate won because they never had an enemy, they created him from the start, with or
without him knowing we dont know, but anyone on that level is on a need to know basis anyway.
It's clear that his every move is steered with the goal to bring down rogue antiestablishment
sentiments.
And it worked very well. Radical left antiestablishment is suddenly prodemocrats and
radical right antiestablishment is totally disillusioned and just became domestic
terrorists.
Trump wasn't supposed to win in 2016. The deep state probably wanted liberal Jeb Bush or
Rubio or Cruz in there. Trump destroyed all the competition in the GOP primaries. Remember,
Trump wasn't picked by the deep state to be their guy. He financed his own campaign. He was a
major burr in their saddle. The Trump phenomenon is real and he proved it with a landslide
victory that was stolen.
Martin Usher , Jan 12, 2021 6:16 PM Reply to
Thom1111
What 'landslide'? The numbers tell a very different story. Trump should have won a second
term but he didn't because of two things, one being the grass roots efforts of Democrats to
motivate voter groups despite systematic road blocks being placed in those groups' path and
the other -- a important one -- being that there's quite a lot of life long Republicans out
there that cannot stand Trump.
Trumpism is like a cult in many ways. One feature is that those who 'believe' find it
difficult to come to grips with the fact that they might hold a minority view. They're used
to being embattled, that's a signature feature of such groups (they're always fighting for
something against an implacable enemy, preferably an unseen one) but its just inconceivable
that they're really a fringe group. The events of last Wednesday have probably done more to
promote Democrat candidates than anything else this cycle; fortunately for the most part the
election was over so all they lost were the two Senate seats.
PS -- May I draw your attention to an old Beatles song -- "Revolution"? (I'd also suggest
an even old song "Trouble Coming" from the Mothers of Invention.)
Voz 0db , Jan 10, 2021 7:58 PM
Under the CURRENT MAIN SYSTEM – The Monetary System – there is no "drain the
swamp"!
James Meeks , Jan 10, 2021 10:29 PM Reply to
Voz 0db
Then you're going to love the technocrats "social credits" scheme such as China currently
imposes on it's population.
Voz 0db , Jan 11, 2021 10:43 AM Reply to
James Meeks
China developed that system with the HELP of the Western Corporations, so that in a near
future the tech will be deployed in the western Plantations. OPERATION COVIDIUS is just the
1st of many operations that will create the FEAR & PANIC conditions among the herds of
modern western moron slaves, that will make it really easy for THEM to deploy that tech.
Why do you think China was the chosen one to practice a "city lockdown" during EVENT 201
planning?
Why do you think China was on the news of western countries while they were executing the
lockdown and then no more China news?
China is also under the Shadow of the SRF & Billionaires at least for now. The only
thing China is trying to achieve is to shift the POWER of the SRF into Chinese Families,
nothing more.
maxine , Jan 10, 2021 7:48 PM
What has Off-G come to? .One must be truly mad to imagine that D. tHRUMP
"SINCERELY" thought ANYTHING EVER, let alone "changing the way America is run" .He's
incapable of comprehending what the word "SINCERITY" means .Sorry the author has lost his
hero.
OffG publishes articles and anybody who wants to can comment on them.
It does not push, or imagine, any group philosophy other than to support us all in a deep
distrust of what the mainstream media ram down our throats every day, and to give us space to
express our personal disgust in our own way.
We are not going to imagine what you would like us to imagine merely on your say-so
either, although you are quite free to tell us what your personal recommendations are.
OffG has never been pro-Trump, and we are all aware that the alternative is far from being
any better.
Perhaps you would like to tell us what is really bugging you, given that you have
never been under any pressure even to show up here At the very least, you could stay on
topic:
So, what about the swamp, and who you think is most likely to succeed in draining it ?
Carol Jones , Jan 10, 2021 8:53 PM Reply to
wardropper
Hear Hear!
Gezzah Potts , Jan 10, 2021 10:26 PM Reply to
wardropper
Spot on W👍
YouTube_censors_unfortuna , Jan 10, 2021 7:40 PM
Trump's racist fan base supported America's bogus War of Terrorism against blameless
Muslim countries, did they not? What goes around, comes around.
I think you are getting fan bases mixed up. Trump inherited these conflicts from Bush,
Iraq 2002 invasion & Obama's 2015 invasion of Syria and it was Trump that threatened to
end the propping up of the endless war industry. In fact that played the major role in why
Trump had to be removed at all costs including selling treason and vote rigging as Democracy
to be defended against "domestic terrorists".
YouTube_censors_unfortuna , Jan 11, 2021 9:45 AM Reply to
James Meeks
Did America's white patriots oppose the demonisation of Muslims as being terrorists who
did 9/11 or did they participate in this US government fiction?
No, at least half of the patriots are and were aware that 9/11 was an inside job.
Geoffrey Skoll , Jan 10, 2021 7:25 PM
Right! The Donald was too weak and too stupid. A smarter president got shot for his
troubles, but the rulers knew they didn't have to resort to that against the Donald. He was
obsessed with his mirror. All those meeting between Ike and JFK, what do you think they were
talking about?
Sounds like you came to Off Guardian thinking it was the Guardian and expected to find a
group of like minded consumers of security state propaganda in a Trump bashing fest.
Do u relly guys think Trump was a hope for all pf us? I am still amazed that
people(including off-guard) still thinks in terms of left vs right, good vs bad, and all that
narrative. I am afraid that nnarrativ has never been true. It is part of the game of "the
matrix" to keep us entertained in shows programmed for tth masses, division, polarizaiomn,
saviours and "heros". In my opinion it is time for a deep shift. Continuing to hope that some
guy will save us all, it is just seeing a tree but not being able to see the woods. While
some keep waiting for somebody to save us, they are moving forward with their plans really
fast. But no problem guys. Sooner or later the rrality will knock on you door, and you will
have to decide if you are going to be a slave or a free human. And it will be all about what
you decide. No american hero or any messiah will do it for you.
Sophie - Admin1 , Jan 10, 2021 9:50 PM Reply to
MANUEL
We have warned against accepting the Left/Right paradigm many times. This is NOT an
editorial and therefore is not 'the voice of OffG'.
Some visitors here need to up their sophistication level to the point they understand we
publish a SPECTRUM of dissident opinion that we consider merits discussion or a wider
audience, without necessarily agreeing with all of it.
"Some visitors here need to up their sophistication level to the point they understand
we publish a SPECTRUM of dissident opinion "
- Yep, well that's as may be, but Andrew Korybko's position is *Lame As All Hell* –
Every establishment talking point *Covered* – just from the 'Contrarian' side
- Trump was an 'Outsider' who 'Became' an 'Insider'?! – Aww Puh-lease! – He
was a *Stalking Horse
- "He didn't have the *'Strength'* to 'Drain The Swamp'(tm)"??!?! – *No-One*
*Indivudal* in all Creation could've
- Do you think we're *Children*?!
Asylum , Jan 11, 2021 3:26 PM Reply to
Sgt Oddball
been on this site a whole while now not seen any articles discussing trump failures
James Meeks , Jan 10, 2021 11:06 PM Reply to
MANUEL
We are all aware that we are the playthings of the rich and powerful but all you're doing
is stating what most of us already know. What is your solution? So tell us please what you
are doing to that makes you feel free and not a slave? Are you living off the grid? Not using
currency? What is it you're doing that makes you different from those of us you claim are not
facing reality? I think many people, myself included, who have no love for Trump see that he
is being denounced by every billionaire member of the Davos gang of criminals as a threat to
world order and the economy while they shut down the planet with medical martial law and
create an authoritarian Globalist Technocratic dictatorship ending Democracies worldwide and
targeting "domestic terrorists" who oppose them.
George Mc , Jan 10, 2021 6:35 PM
The steps on how to destroy all of the services, public and private though
focussing on the NHS:
Seize on a moderate flu variant. Build it up to be the blackest
death since the black death. Seize on all the old people who die anyway and claim their
numbers as an indication of the carnage. For anyone still hesitant, introduce hypocritical
emotional blackmail about "the most vulnerable" in our society to shame everyone into the
game On the basis of those appropriated death figures, endlessly circulate fear porn –
enhanced by the fact that the symptoms of this apocalyptic virus are indistinguishable from
the regular flu or even the common cold. Get everyone to steer clear of everyone else. Close
down all "inessential" work plus communal gathering places to ensure everyone is isolated
before the droning monolithic message you are pumping out. Introduce even more draconian
measures for anyone who "has" the bug – effectively barring them even (especially) from
care work. Prioritise the new bug cases so that they have access to hospital facilities
– while anyone with other (real) illnesses are barred to "protect" them! This fills up
the hospitals with hypochondriacs with the common cold. Introduce the notion that some may
carry the bug without symptoms. Introduce a new test which can determine who has the
symptomless bug. On the basis of those magical symptomless bug test kits, bar the
essential workers from supporting the vulnerable – in order to "protect the
vulnerable"! Constantly report on how the NHS is collapsing – which it is, being filled
up with folks with the cold and turning everyone else away, and also being deprived of
essential workers who tested positive for the symptomless bug. Just stand back and watch it
all collapse whilst continuing to report on it with increasing horror!
George Mc , Jan 10, 2021 6:41 PM Reply to
George Mc
PS the list is not exhaustive. I didn't even touch on the phony Left/Right divide.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL , Jan 10, 2021 7:18 PM Reply to
George Mc
EXCERPTS FROM THE AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORTS INTO COVID-19 AND CARE HOMES.
A must read.
The Department of Health and Social Care . adopted a policy, that led to 25,000 patients,
including those (known to be) infected (with Covid-19, and also those who were) possibly
infected with Covid-19 (but) had not been tested, being discharged from hospital into care
homes between 17 March and 15 April -- exponentially increasing the risk of transmission to
the very population most at risk of severe illness and death from the disease. (This, while
being denied) access to testing, (being denied) personal protective equipment, (while having)
insufficient staff, and limited (and confusing) guidance.
Looks like Trump is elevated well beyond his standing and abilities. He proved to be mediocre politician who got into
the prepared trap and endangered and then betrayed his supporters.
Notable quotes:
"... Four years ago the Anglo-American deep state concluded that liberal democracy is no longer guaranteed to keep them in power. The new threat comes from populist like Trump. Instead of democracy they decided to turn to totalitarianism. The first step was a totalitarian media regime . ..."
"... LMFAO. Trump is no threat. Listen to his farewell speech . Summary: bend over and salute the flag. ..."
Four years ago the Anglo-American deep state concluded that liberal democracy is no longer
guaranteed to keep them in power. The new threat comes from populist like Trump. Instead of democracy they decided to turn to totalitarianism. The first step was a
totalitarian media regime .
I think McConnell is right. Trump speech was very incoherent but it contained some elements
that can be classified as incitement. But I think that he got into trap organized by neoliberal
wing of DemParty. BTW giving a 78-year-old Senator a six-year term is a
modest gamble, as an actuarial table will show you .
Probably McConnell, who is pretty shrewd political operative despite his age, understands
that Trump does not matter anymore. He was spent. Politically on Dec 6, he committed a suicide.
So his impeachment might not as harshly affect the Republican Party as some ZH commenters assume.
The party does need a new leader, anyway. Trump proved to be mediocre politician and this is an
worse then any of his real or imaginable crimes.
" We stood together and said an angry mob would not get veto power over the rule of law in
our nation. Not even for one night. We certified the people's clear choice for their 46th
president.
Tomorrow, President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Harris will be sworn in. We will
have a safe and successful inauguration right here on the west front of the Capitol -- the
space that President Bush 41 called 'democracy's front porch.' And then we'll move forward
."
... ... ...
This, according to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, is a major problem for the GOP who told Fox
News' Ingraham Angle on Friday that he believes that if Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell and other Senate Republicans join the Democrats to impeach President Donald Trump,
a third of Republican voters will permanently abandon the party as a result.
"I don't understand how they can be moving forward with this," he said, before
adding
"The thing they're doing now is an overreaction, and if they think they're going to have
a positive feeling from the public, when they're going to go through a partisan impeachment
again, I think that's absolutely insane and wrong headed ."
Ingraham then asked Paul if he was surprised that McConnell is reportedly planning to
instruct Republicans to vote to convict President Trump after he leaves the presidency, in a
move that could strip him of his security and prevent him from running for office in
2024.
"I don't often get asked my advice from leadership on how they should react, but my
unsolicited suggestion would be this: They will destroy the Republican Party if leadership is
complicit in impeachment, or if leadership votes for impeachment, they will destroy the
party."
"Impeachment is purely a partisan thing, it's for the moral, 'Oh I'm so much better than
you, and you're a bad person, because I'm so moral.'" Paul added, "These are the kind of
people that are going to do this."
"The impeachment is a wrongheaded, partisan notion. If Republicans go along with it, it
will destroy the party. A third of Republicans will leave the party."
"This isn't about, anymore, the electoral college," Paul concluded.
"It's about the future of the party, and if you're going to ostracize and excommunicate
President Trump from the party, then guess what, millions of his fans will leave as
well."
Additionally, congressional leaders, including House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy and Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, will skip President Trump's departure ceremony in Maryland
tomorrow morning in favor of attending mass with incoming President Joe Biden ahead of his
inauguration,
congressional sources familiar with their plans tell Axios .
lay_arrow
Gaius Petronius 31 minutes ago (Edited)
No. If McConnell impeaches Trump, the U.S. becomes an instant one party state. The
entire GOP will collapse and collapse quickly. It would destroy the party. But maybe it's
time for the GOP to die? The Senate has a bunch of RINOs in it. Impeaching Trump will end
their Senate career come their next election. I think if Mitch is doing this, he knows he
is doing this and he knows the consequences and he doesn't give a damn because this is
really *NOT* about Trump, it's about preventing a true outsider (like Trump) from coming in
and running the country when for decades who runs the country has always been decided by
the elite. They don't like the people being able to pick their president. They want to be
the ones who pick the president. The surest way to make sure that Trump never runs again is
to impeach him, but Mitch better get ready to change his party affiliation to D because
there won't be a Republican party after that.
zerofucks 28 minutes ago
the uniparty needs the 2 party cover to keep the illusion going
Gaius Petronius 23 minutes ago remove link
He's just part of the deep state. He likes his power.
Buzz-Kill 6 minutes ago (Edited)
Yep... McConnel is a Deep State operator.
chunga 1 hour ago
People love to throw around this term "rino" which is misleading and dumb. It suggests
there are a handful of them that suck and block the good ones.
If that were the case Moribund Mitch and House Minority leader what's his name would not
be in these "leadership" positions. And they are.
"Read Fake President .This book can help us replace Trump with truth."
-- Gloria Steinem
"Terrific new book . Fake President informs as it entertains."
-- Laurence Tribe
An incisive, witty roadmap into the disinformation and betrayals of President Trump --
just in time for the impeachment hearings and the 2020 election.
Donald Trump was lawfully selected as the US president...but is still a "fake" president
because he simply lacks the integrity, intelligence, and stability to perform the duties of the
office as the Constitution intended. "If you spend so much time golfing, tweeting, and
seething," write Green and Nader, "it's understandable that a POTUS doesn't get around to
appointing one-third of all agency inspector generals...Might as well expect a surgeon to be an
opera singer."
As the House Impeachment Inquiry unfolds based on a similar premise , Fake President
decodes many of his worst scandals and "twistifications" (a Jefferson coinage). And it's bound
to get even worse as the House gets closer to actual Articles of Impeachment and the Fall
election approaches. Since it's nearly impossible to keep track of Trump's "daily lava of
lies," two of America's foremost public advocates do that work for you. This is your one-stop
shop that explains what the Lyin' King means to our democracy.
It's a cheeky, deadly rebuke of Trump's incorrigible "fakery"...from his dishonesty about
foreign policy to blatant ignorance about the environment to his messianic narcissism.
Fake President is an essential guide to help you understand the two biggest news
stories of the coming year -- impeachment and the 2020 presidential election.
46 Follow RT on Outgoing US
President Donald Trump has delivered his "parting gift" to the Moscow-led Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline, with newly announced sanctions targeting a pipe-laying vessel and companies involved
in the multinational project.
The specialist ship concerned, named, 'Fortuna,' and oil tanker 'Maksim Gorky', as well as
two Russian firms, KVT-Rus and Rustanker, were blacklisted on Tuesday under CAATSA (Countering
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) as part of Washington's economic war on Moscow.
The same legislation had been previously used by the US to target numerous Russian officials
and enterprises.
Russian energy giant Gazprom warned its investors earlier on Tuesday that Nord Stream 2
could be suspended or even canceled if more US restrictions are introduced.
However, Moscow has assured its partners that it intends to complete the project despite
"harsh pressure on the part of Washington," according to Kremlin press secretary Dmitry
Peskov. Reacting to the new package of sanctions on Tuesday, Peskov called them
"unlawful."
Meanwhile, the EU said it is in no rush to join the Washington-led sanction war on Nord
Stream 2. EU foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, said that the bloc is not going to resist
the construction of the project.
"Because we're talking about a private project, we can't hamper the operations of those
companies if the German government agrees to it," Borrell said Tuesday.
Nord Stream 2 is an offshore gas pipeline, linking Russia and Germany with aim of providing
cheaper energy to Central European customers. Under the agreement between Moscow and Berlin, it
was to be launched in mid-2020, but the construction has been delayed due to strong opposition
from Washington.
The US, which is hoping to sell its Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to Europe, has hit the
project with several rounds of sanctions over scarcely credible claims that it could undermine
European energy security. Critics say the real intent is to force EU members to buy from
American companies.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
46 Follow RT on
Trends:
Fatback33 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The group that owns Washington makes the foreign policy. That policy is not for the benefit
of the people.
DukeLeo Fatback33 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:06 PM
That is correct. The private banks and corporations in the US are very upset about Nord
Stream - 2, as they want Europe to buy US gas at double price. Washington thus introduces
additional political gangsterism in the shape of new unilateral sanctions which have no merit
in international law.
noremedy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:22 AM
Is the U.S. so stupid that they do not realize that they are isolating themselves? Russia has
developed SPFS, China CIPS, together with Iran, China and Russia are further developing a
payment transfer system. Once in place and functioning this system will replace the western
SWIFT system for international payment transfers. It will be the death knell for the US
dollar. 327 million Americans are no match for the rest of the billions of the world's
population. The next decade will see the total debasement of the US monetary system and the
fall from power of the decaying and crumbling in every way U.S.A.
Hanonymouse noremedy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:37 PM
They don't care. They have the most advanced military in the world. Might makes right, even
today.
Shelbouy 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:25 PM
Russia currently supplies over 50% of the natural gas consumed by The EU. Germany and Italy
are the largest importers of Russian natural gas. What is the issue of sanctions stemming
from and why are the Americans doing this? A no brainer question I suppose. It's to make more
money than the other supplier, and exert political pressure and demand obedience from its
lackey. Germany.
David R. Evans Shelbouy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
Russia and Iran challenge perpetual US wars for Israel's Oded Yinon Plan. Washington is
Israel-controlled territory.
Jewel Gyn 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:34 AM
Sanctions work both ways. With the outgoing Trump administration desperately laying mines for
Biden, we await how sleepy Joe is going to mend strayed ties with EU.
Count_Cash 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The US mafia state continues with the same practices. The dog is barking but the caravan is
going. The counter productiveness of sanctions always shows through in the end! I am sure
with active efforts of Germany and Russia against US mafia oppression that a blowback will be
felt by the US over time!
Dachaguy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
This is an act of war against Germany. NATO should respond and act against the aggressor,
America.
xyz47 Dachaguy 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:20 PM
NATO is run by the US...
lovethy Dachaguy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:04 PM
NATO has no separate existence. It's the USA's arm of aggression, suppression and domination.
Germany after WWII is an occupied country of USA. Thousand of armed personnel stationed in
Germany enforcing that occupation.
Chaz Dadkhah 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:19 PM
Further proof that Trump is no friend of Russia and is in a rush to punish them while he
still has power. If it was the swamp telling him to do that, like his supporters suggest,
then they would have waited till their man Biden came in to power in less than 24 hours to do
it. Wake up!
Mac Kio 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:34 PM
USA hates fair competition. USA ignores all WTO rules.
Russkiy09 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:33 PM
By whining and not completing in the face of US, Russia is losing credibility. They should
not have delayed to mobilize the pipe laying vessel and other equipment for one whole year.
They should have mobilized in three months and finished by now. Same happens when Jewtin does
not shoot down Zio air force bombing Syria everyday. But best option should have been to tell
European vassals that "if you can, take our gas. But we will charge the highest amount and
sell as much as we want, exclude Russophobic Baltic countries and Poland and neo-vassal
Ukraine. Pay us not in your ponzi paper money but real goods and services or precious metals
or other commodities or our own currency Ruble." I so wish I could be the President of
Russia. Russians deserve to be as wealthy as the Swiss or SIngapore etc., not what they are
getting. Their leaders should stand up for their interest. And stop empowering the greedy
merchantalist Chinese and brotherhood Erdogan.
BlackIntel 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:27 PM
America i captured by private interest; this project threatens American private companies
hence the government is forced to protect capitalism. This is illegal
Ohhho 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:15 PM
That project was a mistake from the start: Russia should distance itself from the Evil
empire, EU included! Stop wasting time and resources on trying to please the haters and
keeping them more competitive with cheaper Russian natural gas: focus on real partners and
potential allies elsewhere!
butterfly123 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
I have said it before that part of the problem is at the door of the policy-makers and
politicians in Russia. Pipeline project didn't spring up in the minds of politicians in
Russia one morning, presumably. There should have been foresight, detailed planning, and
opportunity creation for firms in Russia to acquire the skill-set and resources to advance
this project. Not doing so has come to bite Russia hard and painful. Lessons learnt I hope Mr
President!
jakro 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:37 AM
Good news. The swamp is getting deeper and bigger.
hermaflorissen 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:49 AM
Trump finally severed my expectations for the past 4 years. He should indeed perish.
ariadnatheo 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
That is one Trump measure that will not be overturned by the Senile One. They will need to
amplify the RussiaRussiaRussia barking and scratching to divert attention from their dealings
with China
Neville52 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:01 PM
Its time the other nations of the world turned their backs on the US. Its too risky if you
are an international corporation to suddenly have large portions of your income cancelled due
to some crazy politician in the US
5th Eye 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:03 PM
From empire to the collapse of empire, US follows UK to the letters. Soon it will be
irrelevant. The only thing that remains for UK is the language. Probably hotdog for the US.
VonnDuff1 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The USA Congress and its corrupt foreign policy dictates work to the detriment of Europe and
Russia, while providing no tangible benefits to US states or citizens. So globalist demands
wrapped in the stars & stripes, should be laughed at, by all freedom loving nations.
Is there anything more pathetic than competition between two political mafias hiding as some
sort of disagreement over principle?
Notable quotes:
"... Absolutely his instinct to rebalance the economic relationship with China was correct. But he's too stupid to do it in a way that actually benefits or improves the US long term. Every once in a while with him there was hint of a good instinct but he never followed through because his base instincts always win out. ..."
"... The cries of censorship are asinine. Real censorship of diverging opinions was accomplished decades ago. Banning Donald trump from twitter isn't censorship. They didn't ban the POTUS account (they did delete tweets when he tried to use it), they banned his personal account because he's an asshole who broke the rules. Republicans have been telling me about the sanctity of property my whole life. Now they change their minds? ..."
It's all just farts in a jar. The trajectory was set decades ago and the political
oligarchy and gerontocracy aren't going to let go of that trajectory. Trump was only a
"populist" insofar as it was a means for him to be popular. In reality, he's a dishonest,
craven asshole. If he was a populist he would have responded to Covid way differently. What
he is, however, is a nationalist. Those are dangerous because they don't think clearly.
Absolutely his instinct to rebalance the economic relationship with China was correct.
But he's too stupid to do it in a way that actually benefits or improves the US long term.
Every once in a while with him there was hint of a good instinct but he never followed
through because his base instincts always win out.
The cries of censorship are asinine. Real censorship of diverging opinions was
accomplished decades ago. Banning Donald trump from twitter isn't censorship. They didn't ban
the POTUS account (they did delete tweets when he tried to use it), they banned his personal
account because he's an asshole who broke the rules. Republicans have been telling me about
the sanctity of property my whole life. Now they change their minds?
The empire is in terminal decline. Trump doesn't change it. Biden doesn't change it. Who
controls Congress doesn't change it. Because all of them are beholden to the declining empire
and/or they believe in America's myths (they are nationalists). A failed color revolution run
by people who don't want to accept an election result just says real loud that the empire is
falling.
"... I hate virtually all of Trump's policies. I hate his stupidity in continually hiring people who hated him. He could have turned to members of the genuine left -- men such as Stephen Cohen -- for advice. ..."
"... n a classic act of projection, woke Dems accuse Trump of not conceding, whereas in fact they are the ones who never conceded the presidency in 2016. This is so obvious, and yet it has apparently become invisible to most!!! Memory hole opened up like a crack in the earth behind each step. ..."
"... The gullibility of Trump is astounding. He did everything to keep the swamp happy, to keep Israel happy, flipped on Nato and on Russia, had hawks left and right and at the end he will be discarded like a used condom. ..."
"... can't help but think that Donald Trump is a man with no common sense, lacking the real conviction of his words and just not very bright or he was to some degree willfully complicit in this now obviously dire state the U.S. finds itself. ..."
"... If anyone thinks there is some good news because this murderous, warring empire is coming to an end, I suggest you think again. The war machine is still fully intact and funded. The international bankers who are in complete control are buying up everything and are planning on a 'reset' dictated by them. To the world! Understandably, there will likely be a few countries who do not feel inclined to agree with this reset and it's terms. There will have to be war to correct this thinking, even if a billion or more are killed. The more the merrier. Less 'useless eaters' to deal with. ..."
Mr. Roberts is right on point when he says that Trump will be locked up.
The people running the United States are going to make an example of Trump. They will send
a message that no "outsider" should ever again dare to run for President.
Trump will spend the rest of his life behind bars.
I fear you are right. In this case it might be better if he weren't such a street fighter,
because standing up for himself to me isn't worth the price he will pay. He should get
himself and his family post haste to a country with no extradition and simply live the rest
of his life in peace. No one needs the vitriol that has been and will continue to be heaped
on him.
Trump _should_ spend the rest of his life behind bars -- for contributing to the deaths of
tens of thousands of human beings. Ordinary Syrians, Iranians, Cubans, and Venezuelans died
because of the murderous sanctions Washington put on their countries, and Pres. Trump did
nothing to help -- and in fact, intensified them.
Very similar to his indifference to the plight of Edward Snowden & Julian Assange.
Trump is a monster of self-centredness. In fact, in the words of his own former White House
Chief of Staff, he is 'the most damaged human being I have ever met.' Just the sort of
creature we would expect to find as head of the US empire
I'm afraid you are spot on -- Trump lies to the World when he was running for President
& then broke almost all of his promises -especially to drain the Swamp. He also
unforgivably allowed the Jews to take over Palistinian land etc. He has alot to answer for
even if he wasn't as War like as the 3 Presidents before him.
YOu re problably right, Jimmy.
But it turns out differently when one gets the point where Trump locked up prospect here is
not him but a whole lot of american people trying to get rid of globalism and the need for
wars
Who might be buried up along with him.
But not a word about the crimes of those who preceded him, which included the ultimate
crime, that of engaging in unjustified warfare?
Your post implies you have a standard of behaviour you are judging Trump by. By definition
it must be universally applied, otherwise all you are seeking is the selective imposition of
your view.
I agree. If Trump deserves lockup, so do Obama, Bush, and the Clintons.
I hate virtually all of Trump's policies. I hate his stupidity in continually hiring
people who hated him. He could have turned to members of the genuine left -- men such as
Stephen Cohen -- for advice.
But that is not the point. Since 2016 those who tried to eliminate Trump did so not for
his real crimes but for made-up. Basically his crime of being president in the first
place.
I n a classic act of projection, woke Dems accuse Trump of not conceding, whereas in
fact they are the ones who never conceded the presidency in 2016. This is so obvious, and yet
it has apparently become invisible to most!!! Memory hole opened up like a crack in the earth
behind each step.
Trump's crime, for which he may actually be locked up, was in truth just winning the
presidency in 2016 and humiliating Hillary (whom everyone hated anyhow). I am becoming quite
terrified of people I have known all my my life and even am related to.
Corrected assessment. His wealth and his 5 children (and their future) are too much of a
liability for him to do the necessary. His policy of appeasement will not work though with
the rabid bolshevik kabal.
I think he and his family will be persecuted and likely prosecuted unless the has the
foresight to move to Russia and save his skin.
The gullibility of Trump is astounding. He did everything to keep the swamp happy, to
keep Israel happy, flipped on Nato and on Russia, had hawks left and right and at the end he
will be discarded like a used condom.
Russia saw it from the get go, at the end he will have the full weight of both parties
against him, and instead of locking her up it will be the other way around. The cowards have
no sense of decency, they will not show any good will like he did.
Trump betrayed his base, failed to organize again and again, put his trust in all the
wrong people and now is done. I'll be surprised if he doesn't face jailtime on some trumped
up charges.
For all his charisma and good intentions he turned out a clueless clown, sad clown at the
end. History will not be kind, and neither will the victors.
True Americans have seen their last train leave the station, it will take time to realize
that there are no more trains. Game over.
I thought this was a good summation by Dr. Roberts. I can't help but think that Donald
Trump is a man with no common sense, lacking the real conviction of his words and just not
very bright or he was to some degree willfully complicit in this now obviously dire state the
U.S. finds itself. Maybe he owed the Rothschild clan a favour.
If anyone thinks there is some good news because this murderous, warring empire is
coming to an end, I suggest you think again. The war machine is still fully intact and
funded. The international bankers who are in complete control are buying up everything and
are planning on a 'reset' dictated by them. To the world! Understandably, there will likely
be a few countries who do not feel inclined to agree with this reset and it's terms. There
will have to be war to correct this thinking, even if a billion or more are killed. The more
the merrier. Less 'useless eaters' to deal with.
Try to see something good in creation every day. Try to do good every day. This world as
it is does not have much time. Someone said that what cannot go on forever won't! At some
point, the One who gives life to all will say it is enough. Some of us just celebrated his
most blessed nativity.
This guy biden is king of promises, and as every year goes by and so many promises are not
met, don't think these people wont show up on D.C.'s doorstep looking for revenge.
Who better to preside over the collapse of the empire? The usual rules will apply: the
feckless Dems – always at their abysmal worst when they assume power – will blame
the "evil Reps" for everything that goes wrong (and there will be plenty – although
none of it will ever be discussed publicly!), and the Reps will be at their sterling
obstructionist best. Talk of impeachment for Biden – who will be nowhere in sight for
most of his term – will linger throughout his term, while Trump will soon be prosecuted
and jailed, his entire administration canceled from the official histories, with Queen
Hillary named "Presidentess in Exile" for 2016-2020 due to alleged Russian interference with
her rightful coronation. The Empire will trumpet from on high for all to hear that this
signals the glorious victory of US Democracy (angelic chorus sounds here) over the forces of
darkness, or some such agitprop; and the skies will clear, the birds will sing, and a rosy
glow will return to the cheeks of all the fair maidens and indeterminant gendered of our
great land. The masks, of course, will remain firmly in place, as the "new normal" slowly
becomes merely business as usual, and the sheeple graze contentedly in their prison stalls,
content in the knowledge that Big Brother is looking out for their health and welfare, at
least until the ritual sacrificial slaughter of the lambs should be deemed necessary. For the
good of all, of course. Should all make for some excellent reality TV.
Well the empire is going to collapse the citizens before it collapses, and even before the
empire collapse comes a global scare of epic proportions to shake and rattle the cage for
those whom are not prepared.
Trump isn't going anywhere. I was at the rally in DC and listened to his
entire speech on the ellipse. He stated that he would not concede. With
this assurance why would the demonstrators have any reason to aggressively
breach the Capitol building? The whole thing was a staged provocation by antifa.
There are videos of how this was staged all over the internet. Let us all
hope and pray that the Scarlet(Whore) color revolution against Trump is finally
eradiated and extirpated now that all the Deep Satanists have been exposed for
their participation in the coup and election fraud.
The question has been asked – what is the US military going to do? Will they just
stay put and watch the theft unfold?
Whilst many commentators were soiling themselves in phantasies of a pro trump military coup
to end the charade, drain the swamp and burn down DC, PCR had a very clear view (expressed
elsewhere): why would the military object to a new leadership if it promises more war, more
blood, more money? It won't, it will welcome it in fact.
Be it as it may, and despite all the stinkin' lies about the election I would think it is
too tall an order for a non-murrican to mourn the self-destruction of the most evil, ghastly,
ruthless hegemon the world has seen in the last 100 years.
I second the sentiment. It's not even that. The media are full of Muricans' moaning about
their fate. It's everywhere – and on top of that, the scumbags are accusing China and
Russia for their "tribulations".
We don't care and we don't want to hear about how hard the life is for Billy Bob who would
die for the very criminals that have condemned him to a life of meth, moonshine and
malingering – while telling him that he is solely responsible for his own miserable
existence.
There is a huge big world elsewhere that is currently booming – thousand flowers are
blooming despite the oppression by the parasitical cancerous sub-empire – and yet, we
obsess over whether Trump is a fraud or not.
I suppose it provides a great platform for ranting :-)
Trump run his election complain of 2016 as champion of common Americans. After he won the
office the betrayed them all and governed like Bush III with his own cabal of neocons and
neoliberals. \
He betrayed his followed again on Dec 6, when he first incited them for the action but did not provide organization, security
and the plan needed to press Congress to appoint the commission for investigation of election "irregularities" for then days
before Biden inauguration. He is now completely spent politically and his enemies and first of all, Ms Pelosi, are after him.
Moreover he gave a shot in the arm for the gang of Russiagaters who were pursuing him
since his inauguration.
The fact that Trump leaves the political scene is good. While useful as a wrecking ball for
the neoliberal empire and neoliberal establishment he proved to be completely inept as
a politician and lack courage necessary for the national leader. Which he proved again on Dec 6. Famous quote from
Friedrich Schiller's play Fiesco "The Moor has done his duty. The Moor can go." is probably applicable. What is interesting
is that Zionists betrayed Trump.
But the fact hat he will be replaced by neocon warmonger and staunch neoliberal Biden means
that there is no light at the and of tunnel for the common people.
Like Trump, Biden was never Presidential material. He a a mediocre politician, by all
accounts. And extremely corrupt in addition to that.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump denounced the people whom he personally called to protest. His close political allies withdrew their support. ..."
"... The deck was stacked against President Trump from Day One. His orders were ignored. The US courts, judges, police, the whole system of law enforcement was against him; his orders were blocked or overturned, while the media made fun of him and the opposition relentlessly delegitimised him. ..."
"... On January 6, a massive demonstration in his support gathered in Washington, DC. Hundreds of thousands Americans came to the capital to demand justice after the election fraud became obvious. They hoped that the Republican representatives would refuse to certify the fraud and appoint a commission to check and recount the votes. ..."
"... The horror and outrage of the Dem politicians and media were as faked as their news. During last year, many government buildings were taken over by Dem-sponsored BLM activists, and in not one case did the police use lethal weapons or even rush the protesters out of buildings. ..."
"... For them, it was an honest and funny way to express their indignation. But the real gambit plotters intended to frame them. They even murdered four protesters hoping they would respond with violence, but in vain. ..."
"... White American protesters are exceptionally non-violent lot; as with Occupy Wall Street a few years back the January 6 Capitol protesters were timid and obedient as lambs. For this reason, BLM was invented, for Blacks are able to riot violently, as opposed to well-trained whites. It is not a race thing: lily-white French Yellow Vests and Ukrainian nationalists have fought the police all right. But US whites are not prone to riot, not since the Civil War. ..."
"... Anyway, their non-violence didn't help them. The president-elect Biden begrudged them even the name of protesters: "Don't dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists." Indeed, the name should be preserved for Deep State-authorised looters and their brethren all over the world, whether in Hong Kong or Minsk, in Seattle or Portland. ..."
"... researchers will argue whether duplicitous Biden's minions organised it or just capitalised on the Trumpers' sincere protest. ..."
"... There is no doubt that to an objective observer the 2020 elections were profoundly unfair. I won't trouble you with too many published details about the statistically impossible results, but here is one example of fraud. The city of Detroit gave 95 per cent of its vote to Biden/Kamala, a number that Mr Kim Jong-un would view with slight envy, while Mr Lukashenko would murmur, "How can it be done?" It is highly likely this mind-boggling result was achieved in the following way. ..."
"... The problem is, Trump was a poor organiser. He could win elections, if he could prevent Cynthia Stephens's kind of legislation, outlaw postal ballots, enforce obligatory IDs for voting, mobilise his people for election control. A formidable task, but not impossible, while dealing with a prone-to-cheat adversary. He could even do a revolution on January 6, tasking the right people to act, forming a revolutionary HQ, planning a strategy of takeover, but he didn't do anything of the sort. He probably thought Congress would see the vast crowds and allow for the checking of election results. ..."
"... Alternatively, he was so naïve that he believed revolutions just happen by themselves, as in the movies. They do not. Behind every successful revolution, there is a lot of planning, armed force, weapons ready for use, supply lines, logistics, media support, and communications. Trump had none of that. It was enough to turn off Twitter to make him deaf and dumb. ..."
"... There was no coup attempt, as correctly stated by Tyler Durden : "Trump has never had the concentration, organizational acumen, or ideological coherence to mount a bona fide "coup," and a mob intrusion which was swiftly dispersed by armed agents of the state doesn't change that. ..."
"... Many Trumpists believed in the QAnon and Kayfabe conspiracies; they posted reports of bad guys being arrested, of servers snatched by the FBI, of Clinton and Biden waiting for rough justice behind bars. This belief disarmed people who would otherwise have fought to achieve this very result. That is the problem with conspiracies: imaginary conspiracies prevent real action. ..."
"... He succeeded against enormous odds in improving the lot of American workers: for the first time since the 1970s, their incomes rose in relation to the other classes. He stopped mass migration to the US: legal immigration went down to a trickle. He avoided new wars; he tried to make peace with Russia. He refused to bomb Iran even in the last days of his presidency, though some pro-Israel supporters promised him a second term if he would. ..."
"... His fight against the corona madness was his great achievement. He was against the lockdowns that are about to destroy our world so completely that few things will survive. The last great US ruler who didn't wear the cowardly mask will be remembered. He could not defeat the mighty medical complex, or FAGMA, or the Masters of Discourse, but he tried. ..."
President Trump was decisively beaten, if not fair and square. The hopes of millions of
American voters were squashed and extinguished. The saga of the Orange Man is over. The victors
used a gambit: they sacrificed the sanctity and security of the Capitol, allowed intruders in,
permitted them to take selfies in the Speaker's office, and then faked horror and outrage. The
attempted calls for electoral transparency were deflated in real time as huge crowds were
dispersed, electors were confirmed, and the ascendancy of Biden was assured, while Trump
followers were branded 'domestic terrorists'.
Donald Trump denounced the people whom he personally called to protest. His close political
allies withdrew their support. Within hours, or even minutes, this ruler of the world admired
by millions became a non-person. Like a boy who posted an obscenity, he was banned by Twitter
and Facebook. Time will tell whether he will go to prison, as so many Dems pray for, but his
political life seems to have ended, even if his cause may live.
The deck was stacked against President Trump from Day One. His orders were ignored. The US
courts, judges, police, the whole system of law enforcement was against him; his orders were
blocked or overturned, while the media made fun of him and the opposition relentlessly
delegitimised him. He was blocked even by Fox News. Dem-run states adjusted their laws to
assure the elections' result. Trump was a lame duck from the very beginning of his presidency
to its bitter end. He was kept on a short leash by the almighty Deep State, and when he tried
to free himself, they pulled the leash.
On January 6, a massive demonstration in his support gathered in Washington, DC. Hundreds of
thousands Americans came to the capital to demand justice after the election fraud became
obvious. They hoped that the Republican representatives would refuse to certify the fraud and
appoint a commission to check and recount the votes. Some of the protesters managed to break
into the Capitol, or were let in by the police. This peaceful Occupy Capitol action, the
exercise of a natural right to protest, was met with lethal fire, and a young female protester
from San Diego, Ashli Babbitt, was murdered by the plainclothes police. The Republican
representatives were cowed and surrendered; Biden was confirmed to take office.
The horror and outrage of the Dem politicians and media were as faked as their news. During
last year, many government buildings were taken over by Dem-sponsored BLM activists, and in not
one case did the police use lethal weapons or even rush the protesters out of buildings.
"Shortly after 8 p.m. Wednesday, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the locked King
Street entrance to the Capitol, chanting "Break down the door!" and "General strike!" Moments
later, police ceded control of the State Street doors and allowed the crowd to surge inside,
joining thousands who had already gathered in the Capitol to protest the votes. The area
outside the Assembly, which is scheduled to take the bill up at 11 a.m. today, was crowded
with protesters who chanted, "We're not leaving. Not this time."
Department of Administration spokesman Tim Donovan said although protesters were being
encouraged to leave, no one would be forcibly removed. Mayor Dave Cieslewicz said he had
instructed Police Chief Noble Wray not to allow his officers to participate in removing
demonstrators from the building."
This was what happened in Madison, Wisconsin in March 2011, as
Steve Sailer reminded us. Indeed, this is what the protesters expected; some were dressed
in flamboyant carnival attire; they behaved well and peacefully, within acceptable limits. It
was not an insurrection; they didn't try to take over the Congress in any meaningful sense.
For them, it was an honest and funny way to express their indignation. But the real gambit
plotters intended to frame them. They even murdered four protesters hoping they would respond
with violence, but in vain.
White American protesters are exceptionally non-violent lot; as with Occupy Wall Street
a few years back the January 6 Capitol protesters were timid and obedient as lambs. For this
reason, BLM was invented, for Blacks are able to riot violently, as opposed to well-trained
whites. It is not a race thing: lily-white French Yellow Vests and Ukrainian nationalists have
fought the police all right. But US whites are not prone to riot, not since the Civil War.
Being a foreigner, I do not understand why the Americans want to keep their guns if they never
use them, but that's the way they are.
Anyway, their non-violence didn't help them. The president-elect
Biden begrudged them even the name of protesters: "Don't dare call them protesters. They
were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists." Indeed, the name should be
preserved for Deep State-authorised looters and their brethren all over the world, whether in
Hong Kong or Minsk, in Seattle or Portland.
Russian social networks were comparing the Washington DC events with those nearer to home
and complained of 'double standards'. The US media expressed no indignation when their
appointee Boris Yeltsin shelled the Russian Parliament in 1993. The New York Times and
the State Department had encouraged the nationalist mob to storm Ukrainian government offices
in 2014. They cheered on the opposition in Minsk in taking over their parliament after failing
to win elections. The Belarus protesters claimed their country's election results were rigged,
just like Trump supporters did for the US elections, but Biden didn't call them "domestic
terrorists". (Actually, neither did President Lukashenko: he called them 'protesters', and
their violent demos were dispersed without a single shot fired.) In such cases, Jews respond
with "How can you compare?!"
The Russians compared the Capitol 'coup attempt' with their own semi-staged 'coup' of 1991,
a partly pre-planned provocation. In 1991, the feeble coup organisers could not detain Yeltsin
and surrendered as if on cue; the wave of indignation removed Gorbachev and the Communist party
from power. In the Capitol, too, police waved the 'invaders' in, as you can see on this video
forwarded by the BBC. More videos suggesting Capitol police involvement in the ostensible
provocation are presented
here . The orchestrated indignation allowed the victors to censor and purge the defeated
Trump and his followers. Just as the USSR went down in August 1991, Trump's America went down
in January 2021, and the liberal elites representing the big corporations came to power. It was
achieved by a provocation, but ordinary Trump followers were really angry with the Election
Steal. Likewise, 1991 was a provocation, but ordinary Russian citizens were angry at
Gorbachev's perestroika, while the liberal elites used it to dismantle the Soviet state and
transfer all assets to their oligarchs.
People with a good knowledge of history refer to the Reichstag Fire of February 1933, the
arson contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself to turn public opinion against its
opponents and to assume emergency powers. Alternatively, other researchers have contended that
there was no proof of Nazi complicity in the crime, but that Hitler merely capitalised on the
Dutch Communist van der Lubbe's independent act. The fire is the subject of continued debate
and research, says
the Encycopaedia Britannica . Probably the same will be said about the Capitol "invasion",
and researchers will argue whether duplicitous Biden's minions organised it or just
capitalised on the Trumpers' sincere protest.
There is no doubt that to an objective observer the 2020 elections were profoundly
unfair. I won't trouble you with too many published details about the statistically impossible
results, but here is one example of fraud. The city of Detroit gave 95 per cent of its vote to
Biden/Kamala, a number that Mr Kim Jong-un would view with slight envy, while Mr Lukashenko
would murmur, "How can it be done?" It is highly likely this mind-boggling result was achieved
in the following way.
Detroit Dems outsourced ballot
harvesting to local drug lords, offering them as a prize – recreational marijuana
business licenses. These licences are the best thing sincea licence to print
money . Having such licenses is like having your own ATM. Here
you can read about their profitability and the lengths criminals will go to obtain them.
Detroit Dems had
changed local laws allowing the sale of marijuana in their fine city (it was forbidden
until November 2020). They changed local laws prescribing the
issuing of marijuana licences to drug dealers with previous convictions for drug dealing.
They let drug lords out of
jail . They changed local laws to allow ballot harvesting; that is, collecting postal votes
and assisting with the filling in of ballots. After that, the drug dealers went around
collecting postal ballots and filling them in immediately, if they were conscientious, or just
filling them in at their leisure, if feeling lazy. They had a judge at their disposal,
Cynthia Stephens , who
single-handedly
changed Michigan election laws, and then
rejected Trump's claims of fraud.
Yes, Virginia, there was election fraud in many American states. They are used to
gambling; they aren't surprised by a beautiful hand of four aces, as Mark Twain suggested.
Usually the two parties deal in turns, and cheat in turns. Only this time, Trump convinced many
people that it is different; that this is their last chance.
The problem is, Trump was a poor organiser. He could win elections, if he could prevent
Cynthia Stephens's kind of legislation, outlaw postal ballots, enforce obligatory IDs for
voting, mobilise his people for election control. A formidable task, but not impossible, while
dealing with a prone-to-cheat adversary. He could even do a revolution on January 6, tasking
the right people to act, forming a revolutionary HQ, planning a strategy of takeover, but he
didn't do anything of the sort. He probably thought Congress would see the vast crowds and
allow for the checking of election results.
Alternatively, he was so naïve that he believed revolutions just happen by
themselves, as in the movies. They do not. Behind every successful revolution, there is a lot
of planning, armed force, weapons ready for use, supply lines, logistics, media support, and
communications. Trump had none of that. It was enough to turn off Twitter to make him deaf and
dumb.
There was no coup attempt, as correctly stated by Tyler
Durden : "Trump has never had the concentration, organizational acumen, or ideological
coherence to mount a bona fide "coup," and a mob intrusion which was swiftly dispersed
by armed agents of the state doesn't change that. Shortly after the breach, he released a
video instructing his followers not to take Senators hostage or imprison Mike Pence, but to "go
home." No factions of the federal government joined the mob on Trump's orders, because he
didn't bother issuing any. The whole episode never stood the remotest chance of preventing the
certification of Joe Biden, much less overthrowing the government. It was just another goofball
charade, and in that sense, a fitting end to the Trump presidency."
Conspiracy theories played their disappointing part in the debacle. Many Trumpists
believed in the QAnon and Kayfabe conspiracies; they posted reports of bad guys being arrested,
of servers snatched by the FBI, of Clinton and Biden waiting for rough justice behind bars.
This belief disarmed people who would otherwise have fought to achieve this very result. That
is the problem with conspiracies: imaginary conspiracies prevent real action.
Still, I do not want to finish this piece on such a sad and disappointing note. President
Trump was a great leader. He succeeded against enormous odds in improving the lot of
American workers: for the first time since the 1970s, their incomes rose in relation to the
other classes. He stopped mass migration to the US: legal immigration went down to a trickle.
He avoided new wars; he tried to make peace with Russia. He refused to bomb Iran even in the
last days of his presidency, though some pro-Israel supporters promised
him a second term if he would.
His fight against the corona madness was his great achievement. He was against the
lockdowns that are about to destroy our world so completely that few things will survive. The
last great US ruler who didn't wear the cowardly mask will be remembered. He could not defeat
the mighty medical complex, or FAGMA, or the Masters of Discourse, but he tried.
The day of his defeat, January 6, was the Epiphany, or Adoration of the Magi, of the Three
Wise Men who came to worship Jesus in his cave. It was also Christmas Eve for the Eastern
Church. It is the darkest time of the year; from now on, the day will increase and so will our
hopes.
"... Monitors, equipped with distinguishing "uniforms", bullhorns and an array of communications devices, along with a set of security personnel, should have been front and center at the capitol to make sure that agents provocateurs, contract hired by the intel agencies of the Deep $tate, would not be able to fool a number of genuine Trump supporters into entering the building at the behest of these highly organized and ultimately protected Cointelpro types. ..."
Was Trump for real, or was he an actor following a predetermined script? There were many
occasions where he could have used the presidential powers to disarm the corporate state,
the deep state and even the ruling banksters. Yet he did not act. Perhaps the most telling
of all his "failures" was the fact that he called a rally in the Di$trict of Corruption
without setting up an organization (or even having one) that would have been specifically
instructed to make certain there would be no "riotous" disruptions in the process.
Monitors, equipped with distinguishing "uniforms", bullhorns and an array of
communications devices, along with a set of security personnel, should have been front and
center at the capitol to make sure that agents provocateurs, contract hired by the intel
agencies of the Deep $tate, would not be able to fool a number of genuine Trump supporters
into entering the building at the behest of these highly organized and ultimately protected
Cointelpro types.
It was a setup, folks. That should be obvious to any informed observer. Did Trump play a
role, whether passive or active, in creating the media spectacle which is now being used to
once again convince the terminally deluded boobtoob noose addicts that the Kamala's Foote
and Biden nominees were the "good guys" who actually won the election fair and square and
that the bedizened patriots who showed up in DC in huge numbers were actually the foes of
"democracy"?
@Majority of
One ut the Insurrection Act and how he should have used this or that presidential power,
but unfortunately he didn't know enough about what he COULD do. I'm sure he had lousy
counsel. He was surrounded by people like Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich who would have
strung Trump along, saying, "No, you can't do that, we are a democracy," etc. Blah, blah,
blah.
Hard to govern when you're surrounded with knives. The White House should be called "The
House of Knives".
But Trump did do something very important. He awakened the country to what's really going
on. I don't see that as failure. The elite don't either; that's why they're fighting him so
hard.
What people do not understand, is that he was screwed before he got the nomination.
Republican Inc. would have fixed the convention to deprive him of the nomination, had he not
agreed to take Pence and Priebus.
rump the New Yorker was a stranger in a strange land, having nothing of the sensibility of
the insular, self-serving swamp-dwellers in Washington and no grasp whatsoever of the power of
the Deep State, whose ire he quickly aroused. Trump was a terrible statesman, too
seat-of-the-pants, but what was to him dealmaking was at bottom diplomacy, an activity
Washington has little time for.
Why did Trump surround himself with people who opposed him and not infrequently sabotaged
those few foreign policy ideas one can approve of -- constructive ties with Russia, an end to
wasteful wars, peace in Northeast Asia, sending "obsolete" NATO into the history books? What
were H.R. McMaster, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and numerous others like them but of lesser
visibility doing in his administration?
I am asked this not infrequently. My reply is simple: It is not at all clear Trump appointed
these people and at least as likely they were imposed upon him by the Deep State, the permanent
state, the administrative state -- whatever term makes one comfortable. Let us not forget,
Trump knew nobody in Washington and had a lot of swivel chairs to fill.
We must add to this Trump's personal shortcomings. He is by all appearances shallow of mind,
poorly read (to put it generously), of weak moral and ethical character, and overly concerned
with appearances.
Put these various factors together and you get none other than the Trump administration's
nearly illegible record on the foreign policy side.
Trump is to be credited with sticking to his guns on the big stuff: He held out for a
new-détente with Russia, getting the troops out of the Middle East and Afghanistan,
making a banner-headline deal with the North Koreans. He was scuttled in all cases.
Complicating the tableau, the prideful Trump time and again covered his impotence by
publicly approving of what those around him did to subvert his purposes. A year ago, the record
shows, Pompeo and Mark Esper (then the defense secretary) concocted plans to assassinate Qasem
Soleimani, the Iranian military leader, flew to Mar –a –Lago, and presented
Trump with a fait accompli -- whereupon Trump acquiesced as the administration and the
press pretended it was White House policy all along.
Now We Come to Iran
Hassan Rouhani, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, addresses the 74th session of the
United Nations General Assembly's General Debate, Sept. 25, 2019. (UN Photo/Cia Pak)
Pulling out of the Iran nuclear accord a year into his administration was among the most
destructive moves Trump made during his four years in office. It was afterward that the
shamefully inhumane "maximum pressure" campaign against Iranians was set in motion.
Trump's intention, however miscalculated, was the dealmaker's: He expected to force Tehran
back to the mahogany table to get a new nuclear deal. As secretary of state, Pompeo's was to
cultivate a coup or provoke a war. It was cross-purposes from then on, notably since Pompeo
sabotaged the proposed encounter between Trump and Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN GA.
Now we have some context for the recent spate of Iranophobic posturing and the new military
deployments in the Persian Gulf. We have just been treated to four years of a recklessly
chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep State waged against a pitifully weak
president who threatened it: This is the truth of what we witness as Trump and his people fold
their tents.
Trump the dealmaker a year ago now contemplates an attack on Natanz on the pretext Iran is
not holding to the terms of an accord he abandoned two years ago? The only way to make sense of
this is to conclude that there is no sense to be made of it.
Who ordered the B–52 sorties and the Nimitz patrols? This question promises a
revealing answer. It is very highly doubtful Trump had anything to do with this, very highly
likely Pompeo and his allies in hawkery got it done and told the president about it
afterward.
Trump is out in a few weeks. The self-perpetuating bureaucracy that made a mess of his
administration -- or a bigger mess than it may have been anyway -- will remain. It will now
serve a president who is consonant with its purposes. And the eyes of most people who support
him will remain wide shut.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century . Follow him on Twitter
@thefloutist . His web site is
Patrick Lawrence . Support his
work via his Patreon site
.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Ed Rickert , December 31, 2020 at 10:06
A first rate analysis of the inconsistent and inchoate policies of Trump as well as an
acute assessment of his psychology, notably his weakness when challenged. Equal cogent is
Lawrence's trepidation and concern over the policies and potential actions of the
administration that is to replacement Trump. Thank you for your thoughtful work.
Pierre Guerlain , December 31, 2020 at 06:51
I would just like to have a linkto the sources for Pompeo hoodwinking Trump for the
assassination of Soleimani.
Linda , December 30, 2020 at 18:42
Thank you, Patrick, for this very clear article summarizing Trump's clumsy attempts at
making peace with other countries (a campaign offering to voters) and the Deep State's
thwarting of those attempts. My friends and I intuitively knew the people taking roles around
the Trump presidency were put there by the "system". Trump had been made into a pariah by the
Press, his own Republican Party, and shrieks for 'Resistance' by Hillary Democrats in the
millions across the country even before he was inaugurated. There was no 'respectable' person
in Washington DC who would dare help Trump make his way in that new, strange land. Remember
one of the Resistanace calls to the front? . "Become ungovernable!!!!" Tantrums, not
negotiations, have become the norm
So long, any semblance of Washington DC respectability. It was nice to think you were
there at one time.
Dear readers and supporters of Consortium News around the Earth,
Please pass the following important message along to the genuine war criminals United
States President Donald Trump and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson:
"Do the right & moral thing for once in your hideous, miserable & pathetic lives,
– and free genuine peacemaker Julian Assange."
***
Please consider making the (1st ever in history) establishment of genuine Peace on Earth
the absolute overwhelming #1 New Year's Resolution worldwide for 2021. The quality of life
for future generations depends on the good actions of this generation.. Thank you.
I thank these commentators, a couple of whom read these pieces regularly, and all others
who've taken the time this year gone by to put down their thoughts. I read them always and
almost always learn things from them. Blessings to all and wishes for a superb new year! --
Patrick.
Lee C Ng , December 30, 2020 at 14:02
I agree 100% with the writer. Example; if Bolton, probably pushed into the administration
by the Deep State, didn't sabotage Trump's talks with the N. Koreans in Vietnam, we might've
had a peaceful settlement on the Korean peninsular by now. And it's no surprise that Trump on
several occasions prevented the success of US-China trade talks – it was more than
likely he was forced to do so. Trump wasn't a politician, much less a statesman. But he
wasn't an orgre either, despite the hostility of the corporate press towards him (and I'm no
fan of Trump).
Biden will represent better the real forces behind all US administrations – the
forces responsible for the over 200 wars/military interventions in its 242 years of
Independence.
Jeff Harrison , December 30, 2020 at 00:19
Thank you, Patrick, you have made some sense out of a nonsensical situation. "We have just
been treated to four years of a recklessly chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep
State waged against a pitifully weak president who threatened it: This is the truth of what
we witness as Trump and his people fold their tents." What is it that the Brits call their
Deep State? It's something like the civil service but it's actually called something
else.
You called Donnie Murdo a deal maker. Donnie Murdo is a New York hustler. His
"negotiation" style only works when his interlocutor must make a deal with him. If his
interlocutor can walk away, he will and Donnie Murdo will go bankrupt. The real problem is
that the US doesn't need a deal maker – we have people for that. The Prezzy & CEO
is frequently called that, the chief executive officer. But that's an administrative title.
He is also frequently called the commander in chief but that really only applies if we are at
war which we should be at as little as possible. What the prezzy really is supposed to be is
a leader. If Donnie Murdo were, in fact, a leader, John Bolton would have been taking a
commercial flight back to the US after his little stunt in Vietnam. But he didn't. So the
question isn't what could Donnie Murdo do in the next three weeks, it's what can Donnie
Murdo's henchmen do in the next three weeks?
Casper , December 29, 2020 at 18:19
One of the other personal things about Donald Trump, was that he had no skill nor
experience in leading and manipulating a bureaucracy. He had basically directed a family
business and his personal publicity machine. To the extent that Trump hotels had thousands of
employees, Trump hired managers to do that. It would appear that the Trump family business
largely concentrated on making of new deals for new hotels.
Thus, Donald Trump arrived in Washington completely unprepared to be the leader of a
bureaucracy and completely unskilled at being able to get it to do what he wanted it do
do.
I'm not a Joe Biden fan, but he's been in Washington since the 1970's. He's seen the
bureaucracy from the Senate point of view for 40 years, then got at least a view of what it
was like to try to direct it from watching as Veep. I still suspect the real power lies with
the military command, and has since the 1950's, but this administration is going to come in
with at least some skills in terms of trying to get a government to do what it wants.
PEG , December 29, 2020 at 17:46
Perfect article – and epitaph on Trump's foreign policy record.
Anne , December 29, 2020 at 14:00
Indeed, Patrick, they (the eyes of most of the electorate) will remain shut, eyelids
deftly closed Only other peoples commit barbaric, heinous war crimes, invade other cultures
completely without cause, bomb other peoples to death, devastation, loss of livelihood, home
water supply We, the perfecto (along with one other group now ensconced – illegally,
but apparently western acceptably – in the ME) people do what we do because, well, we
are perfecto and thus when we commit these barbarisms, they aren't such. And are, it would
seem, totally ignorable. Wake me in the morning style .
Truly, the vast majority of those – whatever their skin hue, ethnic background
– who voted for the B-H duo are comfortably off, consider themselves oh so bloody
"liberal" (do they really know what that means, in fact? Or don't they care?), so to the left
of Attila the Hun (which obviously doesn't mean much, Left wise) .and what the MICMATT does
to other people in other societies matters not flying F .After all, aren't they usually of
"swarthy" skin hue and likely not western and of that offshoot religion of the one gawd, the
third go around?
The west (US, UK, FR, GY etc ) really and truly need to develop a Conscience, a real
morality, humanity but I fear that that is all too late
"... 1. When campaigning in 2016, he promised his non-Goldman Sachs supporters (i.e., the "deplorables") that infrastructure and a wall to be paid by Mexico would be among the major priorities during his first two years; instead he came out of the chute with a tax-cut for the wealthy and a phony "repeal and replace" assault on the Affordable Care Act which led to the R loss of the House when it became clear to voters in November 2018 that the Rs and the President had nothing to offer as a replacement ..."
"... He failed to purge the bureaucracy of Obama administration holdovers on January 21, 2017, unlike Dick Cheney who threw all the Clintonians out of government on January 21, 2001, thus, leaving people in place like Sally Yates and the Vindman brothers who never missed an opportunity to knife President Trump in the back. ..."
"... He failed at the outset to investigate the case against General Flynn (engineered by Strzok, Comey and David Ignatius) who was his only close advisor with previous governmental experience and left the General twisting in the wind. ..."
The optics of a defeated outgoing President appointing a Special Counsel to investigate
the electoral victory of his victorious successor at the ballot box and in the Electoral
College, over the objections of his attorney General, do not look particularly palatable and
doubly so if the President had to fire the Attorney General to make the appointment. The
ensuing firestorm would make Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox look like a brush fire.
If the outgoing President were to make such an appointment, one can be assured that Joe
Biden's first executive on January 21,2021 would be the firing of the putative Special
Counsel, and he would be generally applauded for doing so.
Even if Biden didn't move quickly, there is the question of who should be appointed (and
Trump is not particularly good at hiring good lawyers), funding (is Pelosi going to be
particularly keen on appropriating the funds?) and staffing up with supporting (and
supportive) attorneys, paralegals and FBI agents (you can be sure that Chris Wray will not be
too enthusiastic about helping out).
That said, there is one Special Counsel that needs to be appointed and that is a Special
Counsel to investigate the Hunter Biden affair[s} which reached all the way to the "Big Guy",
according to Tony Bobulinski. Joe Biden appears to have been the electoral beneficiary of a
massive cover-up of "Biden-gate" with the black-out of the New York Daily News story by Big
tech, the almost-total suppression of the Hunter laptop and the Tony Bobulinski revelations
by the MSM and the coordinated fabrications of the former IC biggies, like Clapper, Brennan
and Morrell, who very publicly dismissed the New York Post Story and Bobulinski revelations
as the product of Russian disinformation and artful lies embedded in a KGB-engineered fake
lap-top.
The 2020 election, with its cover-up and potential denouement, is beginning to look more
and more like the 1972 election where the cover-up led to the resignation of a President who
just 20 months prior had been elected in one of the biggest landslides in American history.
This is the investigation we need NOW to save our Republic.
IMO the presidential election was stolen and Biden is a crook, has always been a nasty.
That being said if you want a special prosecutor for l'affaire Hunter, have at it.
Hunter the bag man for crooked Joe? What did Obama know and when did he know it? The same
should be asked about his and Brennan and Clapper's involvement in The Steal.
Given that Hunter's troubles were non-news but a month ago and now are big-news the vision
in my head is Hillary sneaking up on China Joe's back with a rather large dagger. Good luck
Joe!
Gosh, what about the optics of the outgoing Obama administration plotting to take down
Flynn and Trump.
Bad manners for sure, because a lot of this anti-Trump plotting sure looked like the work
of the sore losers still occupying the WH until the 11th hour when the infamous Susan Rice
CYA memo was typed and filed. And the last Samatha Power FISA unmasking request was unmasked
for purposes still unknown.
Ah, yes, the bad optics of it all. Bummer. Bad optics is seeing the thoroughly discredited
and rejected Obama team warming up in the dug out.
Bad optics is Trump leaving office and NOT appointing a special counsel to investigate
both election fraud and Hunter Biden incestuous influence peddling. Two transgressions we
never want to see in this country again.
The optics of a defeated outgoing President appointing a Special Counsel ...
Who cares about optics. I mean, what're the Dems going to do at this point? Impeach Trump
again? Meanwhile, our constitution is dying. THAT'S the only issue that matters at this
point.
That said, there is one Special Counsel that needs to be appointed and that is a
Special Counsel to investigate the Hunter Biden affair[s} which reached all the way to
the "Big Guy", according to Tony Bobulinski.
Hunter Biden is beside the point. His daddy ain't gonna be president for too long
anyway. The only issue that matters now is the fraud and nothing else. Don't let the
Mockingbird media--the same that adamantly refused to cover anything about Hunter
BEFORE the election--distract you with a bunch of irrelevant BS now.
@akaPatience: If they weren't Trump's picks, then what was Trump doing there? If he can't
pick his own cabinet, he was just wasting his and everyone else's time. Yes, they have to be
approved by the senate. What happens if the president and the senate can't agree?
As for the remarks about optics, I think it's all a bit late to worry about optics. The
dems just stole the election right in front of everyone's faces. They aren't worrying about
optics. They essentially just stole it and then turned round and said, "What are you going to
do about it?"
Col., OT, perhaps impertinent, but inspired by the Wisdom of SWMBO--
I'm just a few years younger than you. I carry a few excess pounds but retain the immune
system of my Italian peasant ancestors. Not a chance in the world that I will allow myself to
be injected with an "emergency authorized" vaccine.
If I may ask: Will you?
nb. Not entirely off-topic, since the rigged election relied on Covid hysteria propagated
by media and the same usual suspects as should be the subject of Special Counsel.
In other words, the Covid pandemic should be investigated. More urgently: distribution of
vaccine should be HALTED before anyone is (potentially} harmed.
I had a talk with my immigrant Chinese doctor about this. That was two days ago. He was
still working out how this would be funded but he said to me that we (his family and mine)
would wait just a bit to see how bad the reactions are.
My memory of the very early days of Trump WH staffing was having to run interference past
the Democrats standard and vicous politics o personal destruction out to destroy anyone who
even thought about particpating in the Trump administration, the renegade GOP establishment
undermining him at every turn denying him any establishment help or advice, and the normal
learning curve of someone 100% outside of the political establishment who was bound to
stumble and falter before hitting his stride.
Democrats declared it was treason for anyone to aid and abet the "enemy" even though Trump
did try to reach out - remember his very early High Tech guru meeting? The liberal media
never let up, the deep state leaked and sabotaged as a fifth column from within.
The most remarkable thing about Trump is what in fact he did accomplish anyway, despite
the constant opposition, churning and revolving door of staff appointments.
#45 presidency remains a story of amazing accomplishments. Thank you President Trump. I
did not think you had this in you. But you did. Sitting in Dr Norman Vincent Peale's Marble
Collegiate Church in NYC, taking early lessons from his Power of Positive Thinking and
practicing The Method held you in good course.
(See PBS Peter Graves Biography on the early Donald Trump -from the Marla Maple days -
what you saw then is what you also got in 2026 - youtube)
The man is transparent and consistent. No one can complain they were duped or he is a
false charade. He is what he says and he delivered. How refreshing.
Please excuse my "politeness" in using the phrase "bad optics" to describe a proposed
potential action by a defeated outgoing President to appoint a "Special Prosecutor" to
investigate the election of his victorious successor when such an action, to be blunt, would
be politically stupid, subversive of our Constitutional order and futile, as such action
would be immediately reversed in the first minutes of the incoming administration. If we are
talking about "savor[ing]", it would only give the Ds an opportunity to "savor" another
victory.
The President has only himself to blame for the legal setbacks suffered by his ineffective
lawyers who have never been able to produce sufficient evidence to convince even his judicial
appointees that substantial electoral fraud took place during the 2020 balloting.
Constitutional challenges to gubernatorial changes to balloting procedures for usurping
legislative authority should have been mounted immediately after they were announced, not at
the 13th hour after the ballots had been counted. In 2000, Jim Baker organized a team that
included four lawyers who now sit on the Supreme Court. The failing, flailing Rudy Giuliani
and Sidney Powell (as much as I admire her advocacy for General Flynn), by contrast, have not
cut any mustard with their post-hoc and sometimes bizarre arguments. IMHO, the President
should cease and desist now from taking actions which detract from the R effort to save the
Senate seats in Georgia which, if lost, will immediately begin the de-Republicanization (used
Constitutionally) of our American system of government.
IMHO, the President has only himself to blame for losing the 2020 election due to a
succession of self-inflicted miscues which began on Day 1 of his administration. Let me count
the ways:
1. When campaigning in 2016, he promised his non-Goldman Sachs supporters (i.e., the
"deplorables") that infrastructure and a wall to be paid by Mexico would be among the major
priorities during his first two years; instead he came out of the chute with a tax-cut for
the wealthy and a phony "repeal and replace" assault on the Affordable Care Act which led to
the R loss of the House when it became clear to voters in November 2018 that the Rs and the
President had nothing to offer as a replacement . Thus, he repeated the same mistake
that Clinton and Obama made in 1993 and 2009 and suffered the same fate that they suffered in
1994 and 2008 when they lost the House. In this case, President Trump's mistake was near
fatal as he gave his bitter enemy, Nancy Pelosi, the whip hand in which to drive the Country
to impeachment. We are still waiting for a "replacement" and a completed "Wall".
2. He failed to purge the bureaucracy of Obama administration holdovers on January 21,
2017, unlike Dick Cheney who threw all the Clintonians out of government on January 21, 2001,
thus, leaving people in place like Sally Yates and the Vindman brothers who never missed an
opportunity to knife President Trump in the back.
3. He failed at the outset to investigate the case against General Flynn (engineered
by Strzok, Comey and David Ignatius) who was his only close advisor with previous
governmental experience and left the General twisting in the wind.
4. He bungled the firing of Jim Comey after getting Rod Rosenthal to sign onto a memo
citing Comey's botched and procedurally defective Clinton email investigation as the reason,
then publicly boasted of having done so with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador and,
for a self-inflicted coup de grace, told Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of Russia
fatally undermining the laboriously constructed Justice Department rationale. The Comey
firing and the President's ineptitude led directly to the appointment of a Special
Prosecutor.
5. Moving ahead three years, after narrowly escaping the Mueller noose, the President
immediately bungled the effort to get the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden corruption story out to the
public, thus putting the noose back around his neck, by seeking in a conversation with the
Ukrainian President, with his many enemies listening in, to get the Ukrainians to appoint a
special prosecutor to investigate the Biden-Burisma connection. Surely, there was a competent
way to get the story out without igniting an impeachment controversy. He could have taken a
seminar with Dick Cheney to figure out how this is done, all the while keeping his
fingerprints off the weapon.
6. Another egregious self-inflicted and, perhaps, fatal wound: He gives Bob Woodward (a
mortal enemy) the right to conduct a taped-interview during which he admits to Woodward,
among other things, that he had been briefed at the outset about the lethality of COVID19,
which gave the lie to his previous pronouncements that the virus was little more than another
version of the flu. The election of 2020 was in many respects a referendum on President
Trump's handling of the Corona Virus. Had he leveled with the American people, under-promised
and over-delivered, instead of over-promising and under-delivering by election day, he would
most likely be taking the oath of office for a second term. BTW, Pfizer had all the
information that it needed to announce prior to the last weekend in October that its vaccine
was 90+ % effective, but, instead, Pfizer stopped trials the Friday before the election and
did not make its announcement until after the election. It's amazing that the President's
people did not have their fingers on the pulse of what was happening at Pfizer. One more
fatal error.
7. On Attorney General Barr, the AG saved Trump's bacon and what was left of our Republic
when he put a harness on Bob Mueller, took control of the Mueller Report, ordered up the
Horwitz investigation (disagreeing with Horwitz's conclusion that there was no impropriety at
the outset), put his own gloss on the Mueller Report before its dissemination, appointed a
Special Counsel to investigate the origins of the Russia Investigation. If he can't find the
demonstrable, provable evidence of ballot fraud sufficient to overturn the election and is
hesitant to undertake a Constitutionally dubious and futile action, I am satisfied with the
AG's conclusions.
I do not think the COVID economic disaster can be blamed on him. What you face now is
infinitely worse than the political blunders that can be blamed on him.
"... Here context matters. The US, or those who control the US, are trying to maintain American hegemony, or near hegemony, over the world. America has 600-800 military bases around the globe depending on what you regard as a military base. While many tens of thousands of America sleep on the sidewalks, while infrastructure crumbles, while standards of living fall and medical care is pricey but poor, the Pentagon always gets its budget. At the level of the White House, the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel, the arms industry, the important thing is to maintain the flow of money. And dominate the world. ..."
"... Trump is the embodiment of this looking-for-a-fight attitude. Not good. He has surrounded himself with over-age Cold Warriors, with generals, with the pathologically aggressive hangers-on from think-tank Washington: John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, Steve Bannon, and minor squibs of like outlook. He has pulled the US out of the arms-control treaties, START, INF, Open Skies. He has pushed NATO against Russian borders. In the Legion halls of Idaho, this may seem virile, the sort of thing that John Wayne would do. Back the commies down. Show them who is boss. No. It is just pointless and dangerous. ..."
"... Worse, there is a new kid on the block. China is growing. It behaves no worse than other countries, does not inflict on the world nearly the destruction and horror that the United States does, but it is growing. For Washington, this makes it not a competitor but an enemy. This is very much Trump's policy. Don't negotiate. Threaten. "Do as I say, or I will break you." ..."
"... Those favoring the continuance of Empire might note that, even at this, Trump has been a disaster. The First Rule of Empire is Don't let your enemies unite. Trump, having made Russia and China into enemies (why?) has forced ..."
"... Then there is Iran, a geopolitical linchpin, having eighty million people, a large and competent military, and lots and lots of oil. Under the JCPOA, the nuke deal, the Iranians were posed happily to integrate themselves into the Western economy -- buy hundreds of airliners from Boeing and Airbus, telecommunications gear, sell oil, have western companies develop its huge hydrocarbon reserves. ..."
"... Then Trump pulled out of the treaty and, led by the egregious Pompeo, tries to starve the Iranians into installing a puppet government. Iran, seeing that the West is not friendly, turns to the East, allies itself tightly with Russia and China. Tehran and Beijing are about to sign a twenty-five year, multimanymuchoslotsa billion dollar development deal. ..."
"... Then Trump had Soleimani, an Iranian hero, murdered. This doubtless played well with his partisans in Joe's Bar in Chicago, being manly and decisive and making America great again. It was also idiotic, making Iranians even less likely to cave to American pressure. ..."
"... With Trump the country elected an attitude, not a President. Truculence, bravado, and an in-your-face aggressiveness are no substitute for competence. ..."
Everybody and his goat has weighed in on the election, so I will too. This will make no
difference to Trump's core followers, for whom he is a cult figure, or to those who detest him.
The undecided may be interested.
Note how insubstantial Trump has been, pretending to be what he isn't and claiming to have
done what he hasn't. Does no one notice? He has heavy support from Evangelicals. Ask him to
name the books of the Pentateuch, or the second book, or what church he regularly attended, or
ever attended, in New York. He was going to end the wars, but what war has he ended? To reduce
the trade deficit, but it has grown . To get rid of
all illegal aliens withing two years, but have they gone? To bring back factories from China
and Mexico, but how many have returned? He is called a law-and-order President. Yet he hid,
besieged, in the White House during the greatest eruption of lawlessness the country has ever
seen, with a statue being pulled down across the street from his house. His handling of the
virus? America remains hardest hit in the world, and it worsens by the day.
Trump, like all Presidents, has fulfilled the two critical jobs expected of him, protecting
Wall Street and the military budget. What else has he done?
Almost nothing. All in good fun. But in the crucial field of international relations, he has
been a disaster. I suspect that few of his followers in Flint and Gary study things beyond the
borders. They should.
Here context matters. The US, or those who control the US, are trying to maintain
American hegemony, or near hegemony, over the world. America has 600-800 military bases around
the globe depending on what you regard as a military base. While many tens of thousands of
America sleep on the sidewalks, while infrastructure crumbles, while standards of living fall
and medical care is pricey but poor, the Pentagon always gets its budget. At the level of the
White House, the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel, the arms industry, the important thing is to maintain
the flow of money. And dominate the world.
Trump is the embodiment of this looking-for-a-fight attitude. Not good. He has
surrounded himself with over-age Cold Warriors, with generals, with the pathologically
aggressive hangers-on from think-tank Washington: John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, Steve
Bannon, and minor squibs of like outlook. He has pulled the US out of the arms-control
treaties, START, INF, Open Skies. He has pushed NATO against Russian borders. In the Legion
halls of Idaho, this may seem virile, the sort of thing that John Wayne would do. Back the
commies down. Show them who is boss. No. It is just pointless and dangerous.
Worse, there is a new kid on the block. China is growing. It behaves no worse than other
countries, does not inflict on the world nearly the destruction and horror that the United
States does, but it is growing. For Washington, this makes it not a competitor but an enemy.
This is very much Trump's policy. Don't negotiate. Threaten. "Do as I say, or I will break
you."
Those favoring the continuance of Empire might note that, even at this, Trump has been a
disaster. The First Rule of Empire is Don't let your enemies unite. Trump, having made Russia
and China into enemies (why?) has forced them to unite. This is -- how shall I
put it? -- stupid. Russia and China are not natural allies. China is a crowded country with 1.4
billion smart, industrious people, rapidly growing influence, and a very long indefensible
border with Russia. Russia has barely 146 million people, a comparatively static economy, vast
empty lands with rich resources. The Russians may have noticed this. The two have had
territorial disputes. This is not a marriage made, as we say, in heaven. Instead of playing
them against each other, allying with one against the other, or leaving them the hell alone,
Trump has forced them into close alliance.
This is Trump's policy, in the sense that if it happens during his presidency, it is his
baby, though it is fairly evident that Pompeo is Trumps brains and Trump is Pompeo's
enabler.
Then there is Iran, a geopolitical linchpin, having eighty million people, a large and
competent military, and lots and lots of oil. Under the JCPOA, the nuke deal, the Iranians were
posed happily to integrate themselves into the Western economy -- buy hundreds of airliners
from Boeing and Airbus, telecommunications gear, sell oil, have western companies develop its
huge hydrocarbon reserves.
Then Trump pulled out of the treaty and, led by the egregious Pompeo, tries to starve
the Iranians into installing a puppet government. Iran, seeing that the West is not friendly,
turns to the East, allies itself tightly with Russia and China. Tehran and Beijing are about to
sign a twenty-five year, multimanymuchoslotsa billion dollar development deal.
Three enemies, united, where none was before. Fucking brilliant, Mike. Just fucking
brilliant.
Then Trump had Soleimani, an Iranian hero, murdered. This doubtless played well with his
partisans in Joe's Bar in Chicago, being manly and decisive and making America great again. It
was also idiotic, making Iranians even less likely to cave to American pressure.
The same counterproductiveness appears in his "trade war" with China, in fact an attempt to
wreck China commercially and technologically. This is packaged by Trump as "standing up to
China," "deterring China," "containing China," but it might as accurately be called
"encouraging the genie to leave the bottle," or "asking for it."
A quick example: Huawei was contentedly using Google's Android operating system on its
smartphones. Android and iOS, both American, dominated the world market for operating systems.
Huawei, with the predictability of sunrise, responded by crash-developing its own OS,
Harmony . With equal predictability and suddenness it will improve it, further grow its app
store (HMS, Huawei Mobile Services) and, on a guess, encourage other companies to use it. It
will be said that a new OS won't work, can't compete, will take decades, and all the things
that are customarily said of things China does. Wait.
Trump's result: A new and, likely, serious competitor to Google. Good job, Don.
There is more to come. Precisely because of Trump's technology-denial policy, China has
launched a massive program to make itself tech-independent. It will take time, but it will
happen. Every time China develops a replacement for an American product, US companies will lose
the Chinese market for it -- and shortly face a competitor.
The root of the matter? With Trump the country elected an attitude, not a President.
Truculence, bravado, and an in-your-face aggressiveness are no substitute for competence.
Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he is blankly ignorant of history, geography,
technology, the military. In Hawaii, when taken to the USS Arizona memorial, he didn't know
what it was. He has opined that the Spanish flu of 1917 (his date)
influenced the end of WWII . It would be instructive for a reporter to ask him what
countries border Iran, where one finds the Strait of Malacca, and why it matters.
The more enthusiastic of his followers seem to be equally ignorant and, worse, have no idea
why a President should know such things. Is this how we choose Presidents, and the sort of
Presidents we choose?
Write Fred at [email protected] Put the letters pdq anywhere in the
subject line to avoid heartless autodeletion.
Check out Fred's splendid
books ! Sedition, outrage, distortion, treason and other amusements. Enjoy accounts of
America, not the disaster by the same name now peddled as the real thing. Cheap at the
price.
This chart is a good reminder why Trump should be re-elected.
Suck it, Fred.
Oh and Mexico's doing worse on Covid when you account for their criminal undercounting of
Covid deaths. When you have one of the lowest testing rates of any large country, then it's
easy to undercount.
This article would read fairly well if you would just replace all instances of "Trump"
with "the US Feral Government". You're gonna blame the continuing stupidity of this huge
Beast of a Government on the one man? Do you think he is King of America? He can hardly get
anything done, which IS, BTW, partly his problem – the one thing you are quite right
about is the stupidity in the President's hiring of swamp creatures to drain the swamp. I
don't understand this myself but chalk it up to a lack of confidence in his own
instincts.
Commenter Bragadocious has already brought up the very encouraging numbers of admitted
"refugees" that I have read on VDare, but there are other below-the-radar good efforts by the
President regarding immigration. Of course, most of us have been disappointed quite a bit,
but lately I've been more gung-ho – anyone interested, please read VDare's "NYT Delivers Unintentional Endorsement Of Trump's Immigration Triumph" . (Hey,
didn't you use to work there, Fred? You ought to at least keep up a bit.)
Peak Stupidity points out "The Bad, the Good, and the Ugly" regarding the President
and this election – see "The Bad" , "The Good" , and
"The
Ugly" .
I honestly don't understand why you're so concerned with what happens to America anyway,
Fred. You live in the great country of Mexico. Is it that everything disparaging you write
makes you feel better about your decision to high-tail it down there?
Presidentially and socially we face two alternatives: an easy anesthetized slide into
certain doom or a panicked descent kicking against the looming walls of our trap. Of course,
that is not what either pretends to be, nor what the masses think they are.
In the end I can't tell a nickel's worth of difference. If someone could guarantee that
one alternative was more likely than another to end in nuclear holocaust than the other I
would allow a difference, but I don't see it. Which ever we "choose" this time, the pendulum
will swing until a tipping point is reached.
It would be nice to have a serious realist in the White House, but I don't see the people
voting for one. Maybe one will ride in on a white horse.
An excellent and accurate article. However, it should note that Biden's history shows he
will probably be worse. Despite his tough talk, Trump never started a new war, which is why
the Deep State hates him. They teed up four excuses to attack Iran: the strange drone attack
on a Saudi oil facility, the strange mines placed on a tanker, flying a drone over Iran that
was shot down, and doing nothing when Iran fired missiles at American bases in Iraq.
Those favoring the continuance of Empire might note that, even at this, Trump has been a
disaster. The First Rule of Empire is Don't let your enemies unite. Trump, having made
Russia and China into enemies (why?) has forced them to unite. This is -- how shall I put
it? -- stupid.
This isn't accurate, letting Russia and China unite was a notable feature of the Obama
administration and probably goes back further than that. Remember the pivot to Asia? Remember
Victoria Nuland handing out cookies at the Maidan? But you are absolutely right about Trump
solely pushing Iran into the arms of Russia and China.
Fred is right, Trump is a hee-haw Jackass who takes the prize for the dumbest, most
delusional, most corrupt and most incompetent POTUS in all history.
He's run America into the ground with his failed trade war, his delusional (un)management
of Covid-19 and all his damn fool gross stupidity. Just like his 6 failed casinos, his Trump
University and his bankrupt listed company DJT.
Everything just fail, fail, and fail. Even an Orangutan taken from the zoo would have done
better as POTUS than him.
Sorry, but to rewrite your comment, Trump, just like all his predecessors, has fulfilled
the Three critical jobs expected of him: 1. Armed and expanded Jewish colonial fascism
in Palestine, 2. Continue to protect the 1% (Wall Street) and 3. Increased U.S. military
budget by continuing to sale arms to fascist regimes.
Yes, he is a blathering, bullshitting salesman who built hotels and had a reality TV show.
But he didn't start any wars. Bombed the odd airstrip, but that was about it. Who was the
last President you could say that about? If he loses, strap in for more wars, possibly even
the Big One. And as for China, before we get too awestruck about their economic 'miracle' --
which was remarkable -- note that their money supply (M2) is 2.5 times their GDP. $2.50 for
every $1 they need for their economy. Why? To prop up a banking system that is a total Ponzi
scheme. To say they have an internal debt problem doesn't begin to cover it. Sure, it allowed
them to build super fast trains and cities with no-one in them, but they can't get Chinese
people to consume because they are all desperately saving for health care. The public health
care is dreadful. It was a miracle, sure, but full of holes (which makes it no less
impressive).
Fred highlights lots of problems, but I don't see why the other two Presidents will be
better at solving them. They certainly won't be, because they don't see them as problems.
They will start more wars, they will ignore the trade deficit, they will bring in millions
of immigrants, they will keep selling off manufacturing to cheaper places indifferently, and
they will be indebted to their BLM fascists when in power, meaning violence will increase
either way.
They are for Empire, and they don't keep to the treaties anyways – at least Trump is
honest when he tears them up. It is, according to Al-Anfal 55-63 at least, up to those who
get betrayed to tear up the treaties, and they should have long done so anyways.
Killing Suleimani? Is there a bigger misstep that could have been done by the Empire, that
cost so little in terms of human life to the ME, and actually improved the reputation of
Trump with the crazies whilst making the wind down accelerate?!
They will be for NATO, which will stop being an NA and will become a World Treaty
Organisation.
He sure ain't perfect – he is a very weak or trusting manager, it seems – but
he tries to move in the right direction often, even if he is prevented from taking even more
than baby steps. The other two Presidents will march into the abyss whilst laughing at their
awesome brilliance!
Why was Trump elected in the first place, Fred? In a well-run country with real options,
Trump would have been laughed at. When your rulers actively sell you out, hate you, and are
in the process of replacing you, a Donald Trump is a realistic option. That is sad. What's
worse is that even after Trump's election, the PTBs are doubling down on the treason and
hatred of Americans. As bad as Trump is, what is the option? And what can one man really
do?
It's too easy to just blame the situation on stupid Trump supporters, as if their votes
created America's problems.
@Weston Waroda rm the Ukraine military. Ukies don't just take their kalashnikovs and send
them to the metal cutters – their corrupt generals sold all the rifles, motors, and
assorted other arms and kept the 35 million. This makes Neo Nazi's much more stronger at the
Maidan, which was delayed because of Yanukovych and his kleptocrazy regime. Thanks to the
African born Obama and Joe the War lover – Ukraine to day is totally CIA,Mossad, Nato
etc. We could dissect Libya and Syria but we would find the same Satanic World Order boys
– Barrack and Joe – doing their thing for the Cabal. Oh – I lived in
Ukraine 08 – 2014 and then had to switch residency – for obvious reasons. Spacibo
You have to give credit to Trump for stopping the anti white brainwashing AKA
as 'diversity training' which was based on the white hating manifesto AKA 'critical
race theory.' It turned out that under the radar big business and many parts of the
government were forcing whites to repent for their racist attitudes and write forced
confessions. President Trump gave the middle finger to that with much deconstructing
still to come.
I can't fathom how a descendant of the illustrious Tidewater Reeds can
turn his back on the accomplishments of his Anglo Saxon people.
America began as a Protestant project which is why we are fortunate to have
the most enlightened system of jurisprudence in the world. Say what you will about
Trump's brash New York City manner but at least he is a defender of Western
Civilization. I most look forward to cleaning house at the DOJ & CIA if he wins.
That and smashing Big Tech into a thousand pieces.
I'm not sure I want someone like you lecturing us on morality, Fred.
You're basically stating over and over, that the US should strive to maintain its 'Only
Empire in the World' approach (which it did since at least Clinton),
but Trump is just doing it wrong.
@Craig Nelsen f stupidity is Mr. Reed's part about Trump causing Russia and China to be
allied. WTH? Trump wanted to ignore the pretension by the Neocons (if they are serious it be
even stupider) that Russia is still the USSR, our arch enemy. The MIC and Neocons blocked his
rapprochement with Russia. President Trump's attempt to end the completely unfair trade deal
the sell-outs handed to China in the mid-1990s is one of his admirable efforts. Relations
have become bad mostly due to that the Chinese don't want a fair deal with trade. They are
used to taking advantage of us in every way possible – even the Great Chinese Visiting Scholar
Scam .
Trump is a symptom of the disease which the author mistakes for the disease itself. That's
why Trump won in 2016 because the white masses who elected him needed to vomit their own
existential angst against the System. The more petulant Trump became, the more love the white
masses have for him because that's how they feel against the System which has betrayed their
own white interests.
The author correctly points out that Trump does exactly what other US Presidents before
him have done which is to promote the economic interests of the US Capitalist Class and the
US Military-Industrial Complex, by cutting income taxes and increasing the defense budget,
respectively. He also mentions Trump's trade war and technology bans against China which has
served more as a "canary in a coal mine" than anything else, hastening the pace by which
Chinese companies have been diversifying away from the USA, since the GFC in 2008, including
developing their own indigenous technologies which have given rise to homegrown tech giants
like Huawei and TikTok. While Trump's anti-China moves were driven by political
self-aggrandizement, China's response was driven by its economic self-interest, which
explains its low-key approach to resolving its trade disputes with the USA.
But the author missed something else which is Trump's hostility to Globalist causes such
as unrestricted immigration, outsourcing of manufacturing and services jobs, foreign wars,
multilateral treaties such as the Paris Climate Accord, international institutions such as
the WHO, trade deals such as the TPP and NAFTA, among others. His most glaring omission is to
avoid any mention of Trump's decision to withdraw US troops out of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Germany as well as preventing another regime-change war against Iran.
While his economic policies range from the patently mediocre (promoting "fracking") to
outright stupid (imposing tariffs), Trump's biggest successes are in fact in the areas of US
foreign policy in which he DID carry out his "America First" strategy which has endeared him
to his white supporters but which has disheartened his enemies in the US Deep State.
Of course, that's exactly why his white supporters elected him in 2016 and why the US Deep
State is doing everything it can to defeat him in 2020 because a second term of Trump would
hasten the decline and fall of the US Empire.
"He has pushed NATO against Russian borders." No, after Reagan assured Gorbachev that NATO
would not move an inch closer to Russia with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Bill
Clinton moved NATO to Russia's borders as a provocation, along with slaughtering Slavs and
proving the inability of Russia to continue its traditional role as protector of the Slavs.
This was followed by BUSH's and OBAMA's continuation of Color Revolutions to establish US
puppets in former Soviets (and more NATO bases).
The Biden/ Nuland-led Maidan Revolution in Ukraine meant that the per capita GDP dropped
over half by deflecting the internal corruption into external Americans' and American
Ukrainians' pockets. For calling out that US corruption and briefly holding up more weapons,
money and provocation with Russia, Trump was impeached. Ukraine lost Crimea BEFORE Trump, and
he was stymied from removing troops by a Congress who refused to accept him as an Elected
President and Commander-in-Chief.
While Trump has lots of issues, calling him out for doing exactly what the last three
Presidents before him did, really undercuts the article's message. Scapegoating Trump doesn't
change reality.
Trump is the embodiment of this looking-for-a-fight attitude.
Wow, you have been asleep for the last four years? The antics of the Democrats and their
female goddess seem to have completely passed you by. Just to fill you in on some basic
detail, the Democrats (what an ironic name) have been waging battle after battle, you could
call it a war, against the President because they just couldn't accept the result of the last
election. They felt they were entitled to the presidency. You say Trump is looking for a
fight, the Democrats didn't just look, they launched the war and lost.
We all know that Trump is bellicose and a blowhard but he said all the right things in
2015-16. My issue with Trump is his betrayals. He threatened to end birthright citizenship
but never followed through. He was working with Tom Cotton to reduce legal immigration and
end chain migration but gave up after less than a year. He should have ended AFFH shortly
after taking office but didn't do so until just two months ago. The list goes on.
Another reason his administration wasn't as successful as we all hoped is that he didn't
know how to staff a government as PCR feared and predicted. He thought he could just ride in
to Washington and wing it and start barking orders it doesn't work that way.
Trump is not a visionary like Obama was. In order to qualify for Obama's administration
you had to think and see the world exactly like he did. Trump seems to get his jollies from
hiring people who disagree with him and work to undermine his agenda.
Now Trump is courting black nationalists like rapper Ice Cube while condemning white
nationalists. This would be like Obama courting David Duke on a plan to help poor and working
class white Americans.
Trump has given us three conservative SCOTUS's justices. He has also exposed the deep
state, the alphabet agencies, and the MSM for what they are. Evil anti American forces.
And all the while, staving off three bullshit coup attempts and constant personal and
political assault!
And what better would we get from proven corrupt and dementia laden career politician Joe
Biden Fred?
Fuck you!
I'm voting for the entertaining one. Politics is interactive theater. Was it George Carlin
who said that if voting mattered they wouldn't let us do it? No truer words. Plus I like the
Melania fashion watch on Breitbart....
BRICS began back in Obama days. More importantly its inception was due to crippling
Russian sanctions due to the bogus Magnitsky Act, which was passed during the W. Bush reign.
BTW do you know who sponsored the act in Congress? McCain, Biden, and Obama. All are/were
Zionists and Necon approved.
Hmm, as disappointing as Trump has been, and believe me, he has been a disappointment, he
is the best President in my lifetime of 59 years. Of course, given the list of empty suits
that we have been given as our leaders over the last 59 years, saying Trump is the best of
the lot is not saying much. Honestly has America elected a decent man to hold the office of
POTUS in the last 120 years?
At the very minimum Trump has exposed the FAKE MEDIA, hell, that is more than the others
ever did while in office because as we all know the American people have been lied to by the
Jew Media for over 100 years and counting. IF anyone can come up with reasons why anyone from
JFK to Obama were better for America than Trump, I am all ears. Personally, I give Trump an
overall D on his report card while the others I give a flat F. Do Whites really want a
Biden/Harris Presidency? I voted Trump, again. No REAL choice as usual.
All the potus have been under zionist control since they had JFK assassinated and then
came the zionist/Israeli and traitors in the ZUS government attack on the WTC on 911 and this
was blamed on the Arabs and gave the zionists the excuse to destroy the middle east for
Israels greater Israel agenda, using the ZUS military and AL CIADA and MOSSAD and MI6 created
mercenaries to to the destruction and the killing.
Trump is just another in a long line of zionist puppets and Biden is the same and the one
ie the libertarian Joanne Jorgensen who is against these wars, is ignored, and the beat goes
on.
Nobody gives a shit in Joe's Bar in Chicago about the killing of the Iranian general but
you may want to check the bars in Tel Aviv to see if they're rejoicing
Now enough about China there are plenty of other sycophants on unz.com without you joining in. Stick to defending wetbacks which
suits you naturally and it's more palatable.
As to Russia and China: first, you outline Chinese population treat to Russia and then
second, you breathlessly claim they're boon companions so, which is it?
Lastly, I noticed that the one group which has most benefited from the orange man
presidency while undercutting his nationalist credentials which would help traditional
Americans isn't even mentioned in the article no names or hints. What gives?
One thing that is definitely Not Happening is the psychopaths in both parties, the media,
the medical mafia, Wall Street, and corporations taking responsibility for their crime spree
and fraud.
Now the medical community has been fully exposed to be less legitimate than crack dealers,
because at least crack dealers are not pretending to cure people like the medical mafia is
all based on blatant scientific fraud!
Now that these evil fraudulent psychopaths have totally destroyed the lives of hundreds of
millions locking the country down resulting in people losing their businesses, jobs, homes,
and apartments let Nuremburg 2 trials begin!
WASHINGTON -- An investigation released Friday by House Democrats says President Donald
Trump's administration overpaid by up to $500 million on
ventilators as the
coronavirus pandemic first struck the United States.
Click to expand 00:00 00:47 Fauci
optimistic on COVID-19 vaccine availability
In a review of thousands of pages of internal administration documents, Democrats on the
House Oversight Committee said Phillips North America was contracted to deliver 43,000
ventilators to the federal government for a significantly higher price than it did under
previous contracts for functionally identical ventilator models delivered under contracts
dating to President Barack Obama's administration.
"The American people got ripped off, and Donald Trump and his team got taken to the
cleaners," said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., whose subcommittee led the investigation.
"The Trump Administration's mishandling of ventilator procurement for the nation's stockpile
cost the American people dearly during the worst public health crisis of our generation."
Phillips denied the report's findings, saying the company did not raise prices in relation
to the pandemic, and argued the increased price of the ventilators actually represented a
"discount."
Frans van Houten, CEO of Royal Philips, said in a statement the company did "not recognize
the conclusions in the subcommittee's report, and we believe that not all the information that
we provided has been reflected in the report."
"I would like to make clear that at no occasion has Philips raised prices to benefit from
the crisis situation," van Houten said.
According to Phillips, the list price of the ventilator ordered under the contract is
$21,000 and was supplied to the Trump administration for $15,000, which the company called a
"discount" given the rushed production schedule.
The report, however, disagreed with Phillips' claim. A functionally identical ventilator was
delivered to the Obama administration under a 2014 contract for $3,280. Based on the report's
review of purchases between December 2019 and May 2020, other small purchasers, even those that
purchased only one ventilator of the same model, secured them for as low as $9,327.
"No American purchaser paid more than the U.S. government," the report said.
White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere told USA TODAY in a statement the report was
"misleading and inaccurate."
"Because of the President's leadership, the United States leads the world in the production
and acquisition of ventilators. No American who needed a ventilator was denied one, and no
American who needs a ventilator in the future will be denied one."
Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Ryan Murphy said the Trump
administration's efforts ensured the "federal government procured enough equipment to care for
all hospitalized patients in the United States who needed a ventilator for respiratory support
related to COVID-19 infections."
Some of the ventilators ordered under the contract were already in use to treat COVID-19
patients, he added.
Murphy declined to comment on an ongoing contract, but said HHS follows "all Federal
Acquisition Regulations for Strategic National Stockpile contracting efforts."
The Trump administration has frequently touted the production of ventilators as evidence of
its response to the coronavirus pandemic.
"When you look at the United States response, you look at the fact that we were supposed to
have a ventilator shortage. In fact, we had a ventilator surplus," White House Press Secretary
Kayleigh McEnany said at a Friday briefing.
Phillips had first signed a contract with the Obama administration to deliver 100,000
ventilators in the event of a pandemic by June 2019, but the delivery date was pushed back,
eventually to June 2021, as the company missed deadlines, the report said. Phillips approached
the Trump administration about moving up the delivery date in January 2020, when the first
coronavirus cases were reported in the United States, but the Trump administration ignored the
offer, according to the report.
Then, in March 2020, the Trump administration agreed to extend the ventilator delivery
deadline to September 2022, but did not ask Phillips to produce more ventilators or move up
delivery times. Instead, in April 2020, the Trump administration negotiated a new contract with
Phillips to deliver 43,000 ventilators at a price of $15,000 per ventilator.
According to the report's review of documents, "the Administration accepted Philips' first
offer without even trying to negotiate a lower price."
According to emails released by the committee, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, who
served as the lead negotiator with Phillips, offered to prepay half of the total cost, or over
$323 million, to Phillips before a single ventilator was even delivered. Department of Health
and Human Services staff later reduced the amount prepaid to 10% of the total cost of the
contract, or about $65 million.
The seldom-seen niece's shoddy attempt at psychoanalysis may, despite its flaws, point to
worthwhile considerations. (By Gino Santa
Maria/Shutterstock)
President Trump is obviously not happy about about the highly unflattering portrait of him
painted by his niece, Mary Trump, in her best-selling book, Too Much and Never Enough: How
My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man.
On July 17, reacting to her description of him as "narcissistic," "dysfunctional," and
"perverted," the president jabbed back in a tweet , describing her as
"a seldom seen niece who knows little about me, says untruthful things about my wonderful
parents (who couldn't stand her!) and me."
Of course, the Main Stream Media loves the new book; indeed, pressies are always careful to
insert that Mary Trump is a "clinical psychologist," thereby seeking to assign greater weight
to her judgment on the famous uncle; she's not just an estranged family member, she's a
trained clinician . Thus when Mary declares that Donald's "pathologies are so complex
and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive
diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he'll
never sit for" -- the MSM treats her words as the voice of an oracular psycho-authority.
Indeed, speaking of long-distance diagnosis, it might be small comfort to the 45th president
to know that plenty of other American presidents have been similarly psychoanalyzed. In fact,
no less than the father of psychoanalysis himself, Sigmund Freud, co-authored
an unsparing assessment of our 28th president, Thomas Woodrow Wilson: A Psychological
Study .
Moreover, we've learned, over the last century or so, that the mind of any individual, when
perceived though the Freudian prism, appears to be nothing more than a heaving mass of
Greek-named complexes and phobias. And yet through it all, most people manage to get off the
couch and do things, including becoming politicians -- a very few even becoming president of
the United States. So how do they manage that? And what does that mean for the rest of us?
Some enduring answers to such questions can be found in Harold Lasswell's 1930 book,
Psychopathology and Politics. Lasswell is obscure now, but in his day, he was a
professor at Yale Law School as well as president of the American Political Science
Association. Moreover, he was active when Freud was at the peak of his influence;
Psychopathology and Politics is much shaped along the contours of the Viennese Herr
Doktor 's thought.
Evidently realizing that the word "psychopathology" in the title would send a strong signal,
Lasswell opened his book, a bit defensively, with the declaration, "The purpose of this venture
is not to prove that politicians are 'insane.'" In fact, Lasswell, being mostly a political
scientist, was careful to stipulate that "the specifically pathological is of secondary
importance to the central problem of exhibiting the developmental profile of different types of
public characters." In other words, for all his fascination with individual minds, in the end,
the author was actually most interested in collective political outcomes.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_30920151 00:00 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
For purposes of analysis, Lasswell categorized three types of political personality: the
"agitator," the "administrator," and the "theorist." To illustrate this triptych, Lasswell
named a few names; Herbert Hoover, for instance, was labeled an administrator, while Old
Testament prophets were labeled as agitators, and Karl Marx labeled as a theorist.
Interestingly, Vladimir Lenin was listed as all three types.
Still, for the most part, Lasswell chose to focus, in the Freudian clinical style, on
anonymized exemplars of each political personality type, detailing the mental circuities of
"Mr. A," as well as "B," "C," and so on.
From there, Lasswell considers how each type meshes with politics. As he puts it, the state
is a "manifold," into which political figures enter, and through which political events "are to
be understood."
He writes, "political movements derive their vitality from the displacement of private
affects upon public objects." Using dark Freudian terminology, Lasswell asserts that "Political
crises are complicated by the concurrent reactivation of specific primitive impulses." In that
same bleak spirit, he also avers, "Politics is the process by which the irrational bases of
society are brought out into the open."
Yet while phrases such as "primitive impulses" and "irrational bases" are the stuff of
psychiatry, Lasswell also wrote in political science-y language, as when he laid out his
equation for political action: p } d } r = P . Here, p stands for "private
motives," } stands for "transformed into," d equals "displacement on to public
objects," r stands for " rationalization in terms of public interest," and
P "signifies the political man."
In Lasswell's formula, individuals bring their personality with them into the political
arena, and then, if they wish to make a mark in politics, they must reconcile, somehow, their
own personalities with the political environment. As Lasswell explains, "The distinctive mark
of the homo politicus is the rationalization of the displacement in terms of public
interests."
We might note that in no sense was Lasswell saying that homo politicus was
necessarily good-hearted, or that people were always wise about their own well-being; as he put
it, oftentimes, "people are poor judges of their own interests." And so the "solution" in
politics, he continued, is "not the 'rationally best' one," but rather, "the emotionally
satisfactory one."
Still, Lasswell did not believe in autocracy or dictatorship; he approvingly quoted another
political scientist who argued, "Society is not safe . . . when it is forced to follow
the dictations of one individual."
Yet because Lasswell shared Freud's gloomy view of human nature, he argued for a sort of
guided system, dubbing it "preventive politics." As he put it, "The politics of prevention
draws attention squarely to the central problem of reducing the level of strain and
maladaptation in society." Thus Lasswell endorsed the application of therapeutic psychology to
the population as a whole -- putting the country, as it were, on the therapist's couch.
If that doesn't sound like a plausible solution, we might note that we often do just that to
our country's leaders -- and the latest instance is what Mary Trump has done to her uncle.
Yet even those who mistrust a long-distance diagnosis -- and who might see Mary Trump's book
as opportunistically timed to the election -- might nonetheless reflect on Lasswell's political
equation, p } d } r = P.
After all, individuals do enter into the political system, and they do what they do -- and
so it's best if we understand them as well as we can. Indeed, each new entry can be seen as a
case study, providing us with an opportunity to learn: What went right? Or, what went wrong?
And who makes a good leader?
Such cumulative study gives us all a chance to practice a Lasswellian "politics of
prevention." That is, while we don't seem to be able to cure the mentally ill, we can
nevertheless take sterner measures to keep the pathological out of political office, especially
high political office.
In particular, we might take the view that the electoral political system should serve as a
kind of filter, separating out the gold from the dross. If, as
Max Weber put it, politics is "the slow boring of hard boards," then maybe we should favor
politicians who actually know how to drill a hole, and who know to drill it in the right place
-- and not smash the board.
Indeed, if we think of prosaic electoral politics as a filtering process, we might gain more
respect for those who prove themselves in a minor office before seeking a major office -- and
major responsibility. To put the matter bluntly, if a wannabe pol is maladaptive, let's know
early on, when the stakes are low.
This wisdom was well expressed by Sam Rayburn, the Texas politician who served in the U.S.
House of Representatives for 48 years, as well as in the Texas state house for six years before
that -- and, remarkably, rose to be speaker in both chambers, in Austin as well as in
Washington, D.C. As recorded in David Halberstam's classic book about the origins of America's
fiasco in the Vietnam War, The Best and the Brightest , in 1961, then-Vice President
Lyndon B. Johnson gushed to his old pal Rayburn about how smart and impressive were the men of
John F. Kennedy's administration, bandying about brilliant ideas for saving the world. To which
Rayburn responded to LBJ, "You may be right and they may be every bit as intelligent as you
say, but I'd feel a whole lot better about them if just one of them had run for sheriff
once."
In other words, it would be better if the soaring kites of their intellects were tethered to
mundane human experience and political reality -- including the reality of running for office.
As we know, absent such tethering, those best and brightest led us into an Asian quagmire,
drowning even the political career of LBJ.
So now, in 2020, in these extraordinarily trying times, the voters are about to run their
political filter yet again. Indeed, if the
presidential polls are to be believed, this filtration system is favoring Joe Biden, who
has, after all, undergone the "extreme vetting" of a half-century in elective politics.
So is this an instance in which Lasswell's idea of "preventive politics" is being applied?
We can never know from the Yale professor himself, of course, since he long ago went to that
great ivory tower in the sky. Yet still, one senses that the author of Psychopathology and
Politics would be pleased.
Because, after all, the fate of the nation is more important than the strange case of Trump
vs. Trump. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
James P. Pinkerton is a longtime contributing editor at The American Conservative
, columnist, and author. He served as longtime regular columnist for Newsday. He has
also written for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los
Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Fortune,
and The Jerusalem Post. He is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big
Government--and the New Paradigm Ahead (1995) .He worked in the White House domestic
policy offices of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in the 1980, 1984, 1988 and
1992 presidential campaigns.
Giraldi's first paragraph is spot on. But after corona dealing the economy a heavy blow, I
don't think Trump will start a war before the election. I don't think he would have done that
otherwise either, though there was some risk. Trump has caved numerous times, he is an idioht
when it comes to hiring his enemies hoping to appease them, but there is no question that he
opposes mass immigration and invasions.
I suppose most people here know this, but let's look at how many of the pro-war names
mentioned belong to the 2.5 % "Chosen":
George Bush
Donald Rumsfeld
Hillary Clinton
Michael Ledeen (White, but studied history under *George Mosse, immigrated from Germany)
Reuel Gerecht
Dan Senor
*Richard Perle
*Paul Wolfowitz (The architect of the Afghan-Iraq invasions, who gathered support for them in
Congress and organized the pro-war communication)
*Douglas Feith (would have been the Sec. of Defense if people hadn't objected too much, as he
was infamous after the Iran-Contra affair)
*Eliot Abrams
*Lewish "Scooter" Libby of the dead eyes
*Robert Kagan
*Frederick Kagan
*Victoria Nuland
*Madeleine Albright (Half a million dead Iraqi children from starvation sanctions and bombing
the infrastructure for twelve years was "worth it")
That's six Whites and nine Tribe.
If those nine hadn't existed millions would have been alive today, there would have been
no flood of Somalis, Afghans, Iraqis and Syrians to Europe, and the U.S. and the Middle East
would have been far better off.
Charlotte Russe Jun 13, 2020 1:21 PM CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
In the 20th Century approximately 30 world leaders were assassinated. I bet in most cases
those prosecuted for the crime were little more than Oswald-like patsies. And this list doesn't
even include government leaders killed in mysterious plane crashes.
One such political figure was Senator Paul Wellstone who died in a highly suspicious 2002
plane crash. "Wellstone's death comes almost two years to the day after a similar plane crash
killed another Democratic Senator locked in a tight election contest, and that was Missouri
Governor Mel Carnahan, on October 16, 2000.
Wellstone was in a hotly contested reelection campaign, but polls showed he was beginning to
pull ahead of Republican nominee Norm Coleman, the former mayor of St. Paul, in the wake of the
vote in the Senate to authorize President Bush to wage war against Iraq.
The liberal Democrat was a well-publicized opponent of the war resolution, the only Senator
in a tight race to vote against it. there are enormous financial stakes involved in control of
the Senate. Republican control of the Senate would make it possible to push through new tax
cuts for the wealthy and other perks for corporate America worth billions of dollars -- more
than enough of an incentive to commit murder." The death of US Senator Paul
Wellstone: accident or murder?
It would appear, politicians risk being murdered if they "genuinely" go against the grain
remaining true to their beliefs and principles by deliberately using their power to jeopardize
insidious ruling class lucrative schemes and scams. By the way, this is how you know ALL the
nonstop "resistance" against the orange buffoon is just utter bullshit. If Trump was a actually
a threat to the military/security/surveillance/corporate state he would have already been JFK'd
or Olof Palme'd.
The worldwide gangster ruling class is just like any other criminal organization which
regularly eliminates anyone who has the power to alter the status quo. The security state like
common mobsters use extortion or murder to get their way. We all know about J Edgar Hooverr and
his extortion files. Hoover maintained a special official and confidential file in his office.
The "secret files," as they became widely known, guaranteed Hoover's longevity as Director of
the FBI. In fact, today those intelligence agency "dirty files" are even more extensive given
the sophisticated and heightened nature of surveillance. Funny, that gives the term "controlled
opposition" a whole new meaning. Gezzah Potts Jun 13, 2020 1:57 PM Reply to
Charlotte Russe You hit the nail on the head Charlotte. If Trump really was a genuine
threat, they would've already got rid of him. It's all one giant charade.
A Punch and Judy Show for the masses.
Find it quite startling the divisiveness in the United States, and those that I often come
across who fervently believe that Trump or Qanon will save the United States and also lock up
Obama, the Clinton's, Soros, etc, etc. What can you say?
While reading your comment, four names popped into my head: Thomas Sankara, Patrice Lumumba,
Maurice Bishop and Salvador Allende.
And we know what happened in Chile after Allende's death. It became the test tube guinea pig
for Neoliberalism. 6 0 Reply Charlotte Ruse Jun 13, 2020 3:47 PM Reply to
Gezzah Potts Yes it's all showbiz ..
But even among those who justified the unrest, there was a sense that it, particularly the
video of looting and violence, could result in a sense of "white backlash" and play into
President Trump's reelection effort. This is a president who used his inaugural address to
promise to fight "American Carnage" and has successfully appealed to "white backlash"
throughout his career.
The history of urban unrest – starting with the 1967-68 riots,
but extending through 1992 and 2014 – was consistent with the belief that Trump could
benefit politically. Indeed, the 1968 riots helped both George Wallace and Richard Nixon run on
"law and order" platforms, the 1992 riots arguably helped lead to the 1994 "Super Predators"
crime bill, and the 2014 protests clearly, in the end, benefited Trump politically.
Indeed, many assumed that the response would help Trump successfully benefit from the 2020
unrest. Among those was Trump himself, who came out strongly arguing for "law and order"
–criticizing governors who were not dealing sufficiently harshly with protesters, sending
the U.S. military into Washington, D.C., and suggesting he was going to send them into other
cities as well.
But so far, it hasn't worked out politically as some expected. Trump's poll numbers continue
to decline – Biden currently leads him by eight points in the RealClearPolitics
average
"... All this race hatred, discrimination and societal engineering should have been over in the 60s and 70s , but the USG always needs to have an enemy . In fact it pays to have several , ask the Pentagon and the Law Enforcement Agencies, in regards to wages, benefits, kickbacks, cash theft, and pensions , these days. ..."
"... You want the Trump you voted for? You got him. A liar with all the integrity of a corona virus. You indirectly voted for Bibi too. Don't try to claim you didn't know for heavens sake. Kushners and Trumps are openly in Bibi's pocket. It was in plain sight and you voted accordingly. ..."
"... Trump was always a weak coward who believes in nothing, save the ego of Trump. Events have simply caught up to him. If the Republicans stick with this useless coward, not only are they committing suicide as a Party, they are dooming the nation as well. ..."
Trump is a narcissistic windbag clown, that lied his way into Bill Clinton's Oral Office.
I know, personally, how evil he is.
Total JooStooge and he deserves nothing less than complete rejection by those he fooled honest law-abiding working Christian
Americans.
Good riddance.
Of course Hillary is worse. Of course Biden is worse.
But until real Americans finally realize that we can't wait for a saviour, but have to save ourselves, Trump and his kind will
continue to drag us deeper into the bog of Joogoo.
All this race hatred, discrimination and societal engineering should have been over in the 60s and 70s , but the USG always
needs to have an enemy . In fact it pays to have several , ask the Pentagon and the Law Enforcement Agencies, in regards to wages,
benefits, kickbacks, cash theft, and pensions , these days.
But the Owners knew, that keeping the populace fighting, is like money in the Banks { literally } so those folks breaking through
for Peace in the 60s, had to be silenced, bought off, run off or assassinated. It's been one evil social game after another –
and its more visible today , than it was 50 yrs ago- I won't get started on what or who put the nail in the coffin, with the 1965
Open, Unlimited, Unvetted Immigration changes.
You want the Trump you voted for? You got him. A liar with all the integrity of a corona virus. You indirectly voted for Bibi
too. Don't try to claim you didn't know for heavens sake. Kushners and Trumps are openly in Bibi's pocket. It was in plain sight
and you voted accordingly.
Where were all these voters weeping into their coffee when the primaries were held?. The best
choice was Rand Paul – got nowhere – as all these now weeping cupcakes voted for Trump – a man with such an appalling record of
honesty and integrity and an insult to any decent person.
You voted for Trump. And have voted for Hillary for years too. Probably the worlds biggest financial criminal and a war criminal
without parallel even by US standards.. You also voted for Bush one and two. Obama twice. And one of the most corrupt and hideous
candidates – Bill Clinton also Twice. And you imposed this roll of lies and dishonour onto the entire planet.
No wonder America and its people are being seen as depraved and stupid, lacking in simple understanding of international law
and any decency and honour.
And now all set to vote for Biden are you? A rapist and vilely corrupt, outstandingly so in a bed of of corruption misnamed Washington.
So you will vote for a man who has so far refused to arrest and put on trial the group of men and women who would appear
to be guilty of sedition and treason against your country?
Wow!. Traitors going to walk – so it seems.. Vote for a man so devoid of respect for America, its people, its rule of law and
its constitution. A band of absolute traitors to the state – laughing..
The day you see indictments of Comey, Brennan, McCabe and the rest of the nest of vipers – then consider your vote – but to
vote for a man who refuses – so far and its now years – to take action against those guilty of trying to overthrow the governance
of the United States – is not a man fit for the office of President. You need an outstanding third party candidate and the brains
to vote for them
Dream on. Biden ot Trump – are you mad or just brainwashed psychos. Its makes Xi look good.
Trump was always a weak coward who believes in nothing, save the ego of Trump. Events have simply caught up to him. If
the Republicans stick with this useless coward, not only are they committing suicide as a Party, they are dooming the nation as
well.
The current situation is nothing new. In '92 Mayor Bradley publicly announced no police would intervene in the LA riots because
it was too dangerous–thereby guaranteeing widespread arson and looting. Same thing in Baltimore a few years ago, it's okay 'we
just need to let the rioters blow off some steam'.
And why wasn't Antifa declared a terrorist organization three years ago? Why did they get a free pass all this time?
I guess nothing will happen until Netanyahu picks up the phone and tells Trump what to do.
@Herald Don't believe for a second that Joe Biden is being helped by any of this. Trump is a weak blowhard, but naming Antifa
a terrorist organization will be very important over the next three months.
Trump will win, but it'll be a vapid and lukewarm next four years of him trying to develop a "legacy" of sweetness and liberality.
Someone will come along, then, who will make him look like a pussy.
Trump has one weakness that he can't overcome even if his life depended on it. the love of money which is the driving force
behind his decisions and not the jingoistic hogwash about the love for America!
That weakness is one that is shared by those that rule this country. It is called avarice avarice for wealth and power. Trump
is a minion of the Deep State. Today in spite of all the shit the stock is up in pre market trading. If the market were valued
realistically it would have been down at least 30% from here before the recent bullshit.
@Anonymous Kirkpatrick was declaring Trump in freefall, a fool who abandoned his early promises, etc., as early as the 2016
Wisconsin primary. He has been writing variations on this theme for four years, and I don't know why anyone takes him seriously.
Do I want Trump to declare martial law, round up every last BLM and Antifa member, and start telling everyone that Floyd got what
was coming to him? Of course. Do I expect him to do it? Of course not. A lot of people don't seem able to understand that Trump
is not playing to us, or to the blacks, when he tries to take the middle road when dealing with situations like this; he's playing
to the enormous amount of middle-class suburban Boomers and Evangelicals out there, who unfortunately he can't get elected without,
and who will never be willing to accept the truth about vibrancy and its effects. To them, black folks are still sacred objects,
and they will freak out in large numbers if the President starts mouthing "white nationalist" rhetoric and having "protesters"
gunned down in the streets. I love Trump and appreciate what he's been able to do, but he can't save people who aren't willing
to be saved–and since that includes a majority of the "conservative" citizens, America is ultimately unsalvageable, regardless
of what Trump does or doesn't do.
This riots in no way represent a danger to Trump other then in PR. They have zero
organization and most rioters soon iether be arrested or gone home. In a way "Occupy Wall Street"
was a more dangerous for the elite movement. This is just a nuisance.
As for elections on one side Trump again demonstrated upper incompetence and inability to act
with some nuance, on t he other it discredited Democrats identity politics.
Notable quotes:
"... Live Updates, George Floyd Protests Continue ..."
"... Twitter changed its profile to honor Black Lives Matter amid George Floyd protests ..."
"... Business Insider, ..."
"... Looter shot dead by pawn shop owner,' during George Floyd riots ..."
"... Family identifies federal officer shot, killed in connection with George Floyd protest in Oakland ..."
"... Woman Found Dead Inside Car In North Minneapolis Amid 2 nd Of Looting ..."
"... , Fires, CBS Minnesota, ..."
"... Separate shootings leave 3 dead in Indianapolis overnight ..."
"... Attorney General William P. Barr's Statement on Riots and Domestic Terrorism ..."
"... , Department of Justice, ..."
"... Tim Walz Blames Riots On 'Outsiders,' Cartels And White Supremacists -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joy Reid Join in ..."
"... St. Paul police rebut social media theory that officer instigated Minneapolis unrest ..."
"... Right-Wing Conspiracists Pull From Old Playbook: Blame George Soros For Riots ..."
"... LA appeals for National Guard as looting spreads, ..."
"... George Floyd's brother says Trump 'kept pushing me off' during call ..."
"... Advantage Biden, with risks; Trump disapproval grows: POLL ..."
"... Bush Wins Points for Speech on L.A. Riots ..."
"... The Christian Science Monitor, ..."
"... When trump spoke at AIPAC before the 2016 election, I already wrote him off. I was 1000% on the money. ..."
"... Trump was always the Pied Piper, following Hillary's orders while leading foolish populists off the cliff. If you're still expecting anything else from him, you're deluded. ..."
"... A true opponent of Deepstate would have spent the first month firing and jailing thousands of bureaucrats. Trump didn't fire anyone at all. ..."
"... Trump is finished. Unfortunately, his opponents are just as corrupt and criminal. ..."
"... I see a lot of whites among the protesters. How much of that is anger over Floyd and how much is pent up rage over the senseless lockdowns I cant say. ..."
"... As in 2016, people will again vote Trump as a giant FU to the Left, which they'll perceive as having caused, if not instigated this crisis. Disaffected Trump supporters who might not have bothered this time, are rethinking that as we speak. At this point, a Trump landslide is a very real possibility. ..."
"... the unholy and fragile Democrat alliance that includes white-hating blacks, left-indoctrinated students, hysterical femmes, radical queers, antifa terrorists, disaffected POC, and white 'moderates' constitutes an arranged political marriage that will not endure ..."
"... On the other hand, Trump now gets to advocate for political stability, cultural continuity, and even physical safety. The unhinged, far-too-left looters now seen on TV are actually a Godsend for Trump. Watch him amass most of what's left of America's silent (white, middle class) majority on election-day. Regular folks will reemerge as a unified block in the wake of these despicable acts of lawlessness and greed. ..."
"... It would take more then a department store and a police precinct to make a point: "We want leadership, not profiteering", "Bust the bulb" add focus. Corporate headquarters, gated communities, the White House, Capitol Hill, Millionaire communities, airports, bridges, paralysing the hardware farms of Google, Facebook and Twitter, spreading to cities as London, Amsterdam, Paris, great opportunities there. "No borders, no castles". Disruption is a start and a means to an end. Explaining comes later. Only going that direction would cause any effects that last. ..."
President Donald Trump ran on a Law And Order platform
in 2016 but he's currently presiding over the most widespread civil disorder of this
generation. The obvious reality: these riots are simply an excuse for
blacks to loot without fear of punishment. Without an immediate policy of
ruthless coercion directed and executed by the federal government, most Americans will
correctly assume that Trump is unwilling or incapable of defending their lives and property. If
so, his re-election campaign is probably finished -- and America along with it.
Link Bookmark It's hard to overstate the extent of the violence, with riots, arson and
looting in Scottsdale, Dallas,
New York , Ferguson, St. Louis, Richmond and countless other cities [
Live Updates, George Floyd Protests Continue, by Tony Lee,
Breitbart, May 30, 2020]. In Minneapolis, where the riots began, Mayor Jacob Frey
blamed riots on " white
supremacists ," an insane conspiracy theory which went completely unchecked by Twitter's
"fact checkers." Twitter itself, showing utter contempt for President Trump's
executive order alleging political bias, changed its profile to show solidarity with Black
Lives Matter [ Twitter
changed its profile to honor Black Lives Matter amid George Floyd protests,
by Ellen Cranley, Business Insider, May 31, 2020].
It is useless to try to find all the examples, they are incalculable, as is the number of
businesses destroyed or the amount of property damage.
President Trump said Sunday morning the government would declare Antifa a
terrorist organization. Attorney General William Barr said violence "instigated and carried out
by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and
will be treated accordingly" [ Attorney General William P. Barr's Statement on Riots and Domestic Terrorism,
Department of Justice, May 31, 2020].
We'll know that this is serious if these Leftist networks, which raise money and operate
openly, are arrested using the RICO statutes and other prosecutorial tools.
President Trump has avoided addressing the nation, reportedly because
First Son-In-Law Jared Kushner thinks
it will make things worse [ LA appeals for National
Guard as looting spreads, by Ella Torres, William Mansell, and Christina Carrega,
ABC News, May 31, 2020]. But, as with his handling of the coronavirus, Trump is
suffering politically not because he is being too forceful, but because he is being too
weak.
Trump called George Floyd's family, but the family is condemning him for it, not praising
his compassion [ George Floyd's brother says Trump 'kept pushing me off' during call, by
Martin Pengelly, The Guardian, May 31, 2020]. He now heavily trails Joe Biden in the
polls and is once again falling into his signature trap: saying tough things that infuriate
Leftists without backing up his words with action that rallies the Right [ Advantage Biden, with risks; Trump disapproval grows: POLL, by Gary
Langer, ABC News, May 31, 2020].
During the Los Angeles Riots, even
President George H.W. Bush eventually sent in the Marines and then addressed
the nation, simultaneously displaying leadership and paternal concern for the American people [
Bush Wins Points
for Speech on L.A. Riots, by Linda Feldmann, The Christian Science
Monitor, May 4, 1992].
President Trump thus far is limited to vague tweets about "STRENGTH!' without much tangible
proof of it.
Even worse, in the case of this "STRENGTH" tweet, Twitter once again instantly suspended the
account of the person President Trump quote-tweeted.
The company knows the White House won't do anything. This situation is becoming increasingly
humiliating not just for the president, but for his supporters.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump seemed to have remarkable luck, with extraordinary events
breaking in his favor. In the run-up to this election, he hasn't had great luck, but he has had
a series of crises that any competent nationalist politician could have easily exploited:
He
had a
foreign pandemic and huge public support for enacting at least a
temporary immigration moratorium or more creative economic
populist policies . Instead, he disastrously tried to downplay the pandemic to try to
appease the stock market in the short term. He has Twitter revealing its bias to the entire
world, giving him a sure-fire rationale for protecting the free speech of his supporters. This
would dramatically ease his task of fighting the Main Stream Media/ Democrat cartel during the
re-election campaign. However, the president has done nothing substantive, once again coming
off as weak and feckless and leaving his supporters isolated. Now, he has nationwide riots and
videos of businesses being burned to the ground, all being essentially cheered on by his
MSM/Dem opponents. America is begging for a crackdown. Instead, President Trump is blaming
Democratic state and local elected officials rather than taking action himself.
If he doesn't, he can't be surprised if Leftists simply become more emboldened, and if
demoralized patriots stay away from the polls.
This is President Trump's one last chance not to let his voters down. If he blows it, I
think the 2020 campaign will be irredeemable -- and unlike Republicans, Democrats will have no
problem in using government power to
crush their political enemies once they are in the White House again.
Why doesn't Trump realize Jared is a viper at the heart of his family and administration? He
absolutely needs to address the nation. Jared might be setting up another style of coup
attempt.
You're four years late. Trump was always the Pied Piper, following Hillary's orders while
leading foolish populists off the cliff. If you're still expecting anything else from him,
you're deluded.
There's one small point of forgiveness for fools. Obama showed his Deepstate loyalty
BEFORE the 2008 election, so there was no reason for any honest observer to vote for him.
Trump didn't show his hand until just AFTER the 2016 election. After the first week it was
amply clear that he had no intentions of "draining the swamp". A true opponent of
Deepstate would have spent the first month firing and jailing thousands of bureaucrats. Trump
didn't fire anyone at all.
Another white supremacist trash piece. You guys never learn. Trump is finished.
Unfortunately, his opponents are just as corrupt and criminal. This country is doomed
and it will not be able to redeem itself, and deserves what's coming to it. Especially, not
with the moronic and insensitive example of articles, authors and a blind culture that is
portrayed above.
I see a lot of whites among the protesters. How much of that is anger over Floyd and how
much is pent up rage over the senseless lockdowns I cant say.
If you look back to last year Barr developed his precrime program, Trump pushed HARPA/SAFE
HOME, bills for Domestic Terrorism were proposed, FBI issues memo that conspiracy theories
(question official narratives) promote terrorism , etc. This all happening while Crimson
Contagion exercises, Urban Outbreak Exercises and Event 201 simulation are happening.
Coincidence?
The Rockefeller Lockstep Report in 2010 predicted pushback
After Lockdowns over the virus , conditions were ripe for an explosion that would allow
the pre-crime/domestic terrorism agendas to get political support. Just needed a trigger and
I think the Floyd killing was an operation intended to be that trigger. Push back begins. The
protests gone violent with a convenient supply of bricks may be due to agent provocateurs.
Contract tracing apps issued before the protests will certainly be put to good use. Contract
tracers will be given another job.
Trump now declares antifa a Terrorist Group. Basically anyone opposed to fascism and
authoritarianism can be suspected of being antifa and a terrorist. How convenient for
fascists and authoritarians.
At this point people have to be considering the fact that Trump is more of a hindrance than a
help. He appears to be nothing more than a lullaby used to put his supporters to sleep,
secure in their delusions that they have a viable political future as long as they vote hard
enough.
If it takes a president Stacy Abrams to wake them up, then why not now? In the extremely
unlikely event that Trump pulls off another victory, what will be the purpose? He's clearly
demonstrated that he is incapable of any action beyond nominating a SC justice and tweeting.
4 more years of having to listen to delusional MAGA people is too much to stomach for no
payoff.
I'd rather have an obese gap toothed woman of color ordering the construction of all POC
settlements in white neighboorhoods. Maybe then the MAGA folks would wake up. Of course it's
more likely that they would start cheering Marco Rubio by claiming that he only wants to
build 10 apartments per un-diverse town instead of 30.
I'll preface this with I'm no fan of Donald Trump.
That said, I believe the soon-to-be-wrath of the people will fall mainly on state
governors and city mayors rather than on Trump. Polls mean nothing these days. 2016 proved
that one. What's right in front of many people today is that they've not only lost wages to
CV-19, but now, just as they're gearing up to return, their workplace is gone -- either
burned down, or indefinitely closed due to the riots and related damage to public
infrastructure.
Meanwhile in flyover country, people look on in horror at what, rightly or wrongly, is
associated in their minds with BLM and ANTIFA. That is to say The Left. Cartoonish, yes, but
that's what they see.
As in 2016, people will again vote Trump as a giant FU to the Left, which they'll
perceive as having caused, if not instigated this crisis. Disaffected Trump supporters who
might not have bothered this time, are rethinking that as we speak. At this point, a Trump
landslide is a very real possibility.
This is not the outcome I want -- that doesn't actually exist at this time -- but FWIW,
it's the way I see it playing out. I know history doesn't always repeat, but this looks a lot
like 1968 to me.
Trump is hiding in a bunker . Hope he stays there for good.
Yes. It's why some of us stayed home in 2016. A choice between Hillary, a lifelong flake,
and yet another third-rate actor. Did everyone forget that the other third-rate actor,
Reagan, gave the country away?
It's fitting for Trump to tweet and hide. He has successfully updated hit and run.
Welcome back, James Kirkpatrick! Trump has disappointed, and he may be down in the polls, but
he's not out.
This Mau Mau power grab (and the media's role in promoting it) is actually winning votes
for Trump. The President represents the rule of law. Civilization. This is a winning ticket.
And people are fed up with all the slick media favoritism. It's toxic.
Meanwhile, the unholy and fragile Democrat alliance that includes white-hating blacks,
left-indoctrinated students, hysterical femmes, radical queers, antifa terrorists,
disaffected POC, and white 'moderates' constitutes an arranged political marriage that
will not endure . Most of these assorted malcontents have only one thing that unites
them: hatred of Trump and his base. This is not a winning platform. Plus, sleepy Joe will
have to repudiate all this liberal violence and looting if he's to maintain his (allegedly)
leading position in the polls. BLM may not like this, nor will the uber-progressive wing of
the Democrat party. Expect fireworks.
On the other hand, Trump now gets to advocate for political stability, cultural
continuity, and even physical safety. The unhinged, far-too-left looters now seen on TV are
actually a Godsend for Trump. Watch him amass most of what's left of America's silent (white,
middle class) majority on election-day. Regular folks will reemerge as a unified block in the
wake of these despicable acts of lawlessness and greed.
After Trump chews up sleepy Joe in the debates, watch this race flip into a Trump
landslide. It happened for Nixon. Maybe then, Trump the two-term President will revisit the
agenda that got him elected as a candidate in 2016. This final scenario might not be likely,
but stranger things have happened.
@Pft Even all this arson may be of benefit the business community. Weren't we reading
endless comments how the lockdown has badly affected small businesses, many of which would go
bankrupt due to lack of customers? Perhaps the best thing for them is to get burnt down so
they can claim the insurance as many of them would probably have had to close shop anyway.
@Anon show me one single pick of his admin. who ended up beneficial for him or his
reelection: Jared is the personification of Netanyahu in the White House: clusterfuck nation
will be his signature at the court of History.
Where Have You Gone, Donald Trump? A Nation Turns Its Yearning Eyes to You
James Kirkpatrick • May 31, 2020
Out of context, the whole of the elites bulb is irrecoverable. The "bend" to turn it into
politics, is going to be little of a patch, won´t last the next round.
The "ramble" in the streets is way exaggerated, nothing will come of it if all
semi-organized groups that have ambitions do not add to the noise, and get some pertinent
rusults: bargaining power. It is a dream opportunity to "vote" with one´s feet. Real
disorder cannot be worse, when the asserted elites are morally corrupt and have no
ethics.
It would take more then a department store and a police precinct to make a point: "We
want leadership, not profiteering", "Bust the bulb" add focus. Corporate headquarters, gated
communities, the White House, Capitol Hill, Millionaire communities, airports, bridges,
paralysing the hardware farms of Google, Facebook and Twitter, spreading to cities as London,
Amsterdam, Paris, great opportunities there. "No borders, no castles". Disruption is a start
and a means to an end. Explaining comes later. Only going that direction would cause any
effects that last.
These are few things that come to mind. When historically, "real" leaders can have a
chance to re-assert and reorganize, effectively stump out the "rot at the top", there must be
some serious rioting first.
There is not much of an alternative, and outside the US forces, Russia, China, Iran,
Venezuela, people up to dumps as Bangladesh, Libya, will gladly stomp the US obese
backside.
These above are thoughts that come to mind, regarding a minor overblown bush-fire for now.
The thing is a fizzle.
"... The failure of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) against COVID-19, with nearly four times the annual budget of the WHO, is visible to the world. The CDC failed to provide a successful test for SARS-CoV-2 in the critical months of February and March , while ignoring the WHO's successful test kits that were distributed to 120 countries. ..."
"... Trump has yet to hold his administration and the CDC responsible for this criminal bungling. This, more than any other failure , is the reason that the U.S. numbers for COVID-19 are now more than 1.5 million and about a third of all global infections. Contrast this with China, the first to face an unknown epidemic, stopping it at 82,000 infections, and the amazing results that countries such as Vietnam and South Korea have produced. ..."
"... Taiwan was the first to inform the WHO of human-to-human transmissions in December, but was completely ignored. ..."
"... "Just how evil does this situation become? Is the general leadership of the American political economy trying to be evil just for the fun of it?" ..."
"... And at what point does the general indifference to this state of affairs that still, incredibly, obtains, turn over into mass outrage and condemnation? Skrelli, Bayer, and all the rest are frelling evil. Extortion writ large, with easily preventable death and suffering. ..."
"... As you note it's about profits. One of the disturbing condemnations of the now fading American Century, which most USians remain contentedly oblivious to is that during their watch as global hegemon, the US, in what can be seen, in the best light, as bad faith, worked to undermine the democratic functionality of international cooperative organizations like the WHO, the UN, etc. ..."
"... The intention of granting copyrights and patents was noble, to provide a limited monopoly on an invention or literary work for a limited period. IP has been distorted and twisted, extended to insane time limits to protect works that for any common sense thinkers have already become public domain (see, e.g. the Happy Birthday song, Mickey Mouse or re-formulation of a drug that's gone out of patent). Software should have had its own IP regime but that ship has sailed (thanks Bill G.). ..."
Donald Trump launched a new vaccine war in May, but not against the virus. It was against
the world. The United States and the UK
were the only
two holdouts in the World Health Assembly from the declaration that vaccines and medicines
for COVID-19
should be available as public goods , and not under exclusive patent rights. The
United States explicitly disassociated itself from the patent pool call, talking instead of
"the critical role that intellectual property plays" -- in other words, patents for vaccines
and medicines. Having badly botched his COVID-19 response, Trump is trying to redeem his
electoral fortunes in the November elections this year by promising an early vaccine. The 2020
version of Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan is shaping up to be, essentially, "
vaccines for us" -- but the rest of the world will have to queue up and pay what big pharma
asks, as they will hold the patents.
Trump has yet to hold his administration and the CDC responsible for this criminal
bungling. This, more than any
other failure , is the reason that the U.S. numbers for COVID-19 are now more than 1.5
million and about a third of all global infections. Contrast this with China, the first to face
an unknown epidemic, stopping it at 82,000 infections, and the amazing results that countries
such as Vietnam and
South Korea have produced.
One issue is now looming large over the COVID-19 pandemic. If we do not address the
intellectual property rights issue in this pandemic, we are likely to see a repeat of the AIDS tragedy . People
died for 10 years (1994-2004) as patented AIDS medicine was priced at $10,000 to $15,000
for a year's supply, far beyond their reach. Finally, patent
laws in India allowed people to get AIDS medicine at less than a dollar a day , or $350 for a year's supply.
Today, 80
percent of the world's AIDS medicine comes from India. For big pharma, profits trumped
lives, and they will continue to do so, COVID or no COVID, unless we change the world.
Most countries have compulsory licensing provisions that will allow them to break patents in
case of epidemics or health emergencies. Even the WTO, after a bitter fight, accepted in its
Doha Declaration (2001) that countries, in a health emergency, have the right to allow any
company to manufacture a patented drug without the patent holder's permission, and even import
it from other countries.
Why is it, then, that countries are unable to break patents, even if there are provisions in
their laws and in the TRIPS Agreement? The answer is their fear of U.S. sanctions against them.
Every year, the U.S. Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issues a Special
301 Report that it has used to threaten trade sanctions against any country that tries to
compulsorily license any patented product.
India figures prominently in this report year after year, for daring to
issue a compulsory license in 2012 to Natco for nexavar, a cancer drug Bayer was selling
for
more than $65,000 a year . Marijn Dekkers, the CEO of Bayer, was quoted widely that this
was "theft," and "We did not develop
this medicine for Indians We developed it for Western patients who can afford it."
This leaves unanswered how many people even in the affluent West can afford a $65,000 bill
for an illness. But there is no question that a bill of this magnitude is a death sentence for
anybody but the super-rich in countries like India. Though a number of other drugs were under
also consideration for compulsory licensing at that time, India has not exercised this
provision again after receiving U.S. threats.
It is the fear that countries can break patents using their compulsory licensing powers that
led to proposals for patent pooling. The argument was that since many of these diseases do not
affect rich countries, big pharma should either let go of their patents to such patent pools,
or philanthropic capital should fund the development of new drugs for this pool. Facing the
pandemic of COVID-19, it is this idea of patent pooling that emerged in the recent World Health
Assembly , WHA-73. All countries supported this proposal, barring the
United States and its loyal camp follower, the UK . The
United States also entered its disagreement on the final WHA resolution, being the
lone objector to patent pooling of COVID-19 medicines and vaccines, noting "the critical
role that intellectual property plays in incentivizing the development of new and improved
health products."
While patent pooling is welcome if no other measure is available, it also makes it appear as
if countries have no other recourse apart from the charity of big capital. What this hides, as
charity always does, is that people and countries have legitimate rights even under TRIPS to
break patents under conditions of an epidemic or a health emergency.
The United States, which screams murder if a compulsory license is issued by any country,
has no such compunction when its own interests are threatened. During the anthrax scare in
2001, the U.S. Secretary of Health issued a threat to
Bayer under "eminent domain for patents" for licensing the anthrax-treatment drug
ciprofloxacin to other manufacturers. Bayer folded, and agreed to supply the quantity at a
price that the U.S. government had set. And without a whimper. Yes, this is the same Bayer that
considers India as a "thief" for issuing a compulsory license!
The vaccination for COVID-19 might need to be repeated each year, as we still do not know
the duration of its protection. It is unlikely that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 will
provide a lifetime
immunity like the smallpox vaccine. Unlike AIDS, where the patient numbers were smaller and
were unfortunately stigmatized in different ways, COVID-19 is a visible threat for everyone.
Any attempt to hold people and governments to ransom on COVID-19 vaccines or medicines could
see the collapse of the entire patent edifice of TRIPS that big pharma backed by the United
States and major EU countries have built. That is why the more clever in the capitalist world
have moved toward a voluntary
patent pool for potential COVID-19 medicines and vaccines. A voluntary patent pool means
that companies or institutions holding patents on medicines -- such as remdesivir -- or
vaccines would voluntarily hand them over to such a pool. The terms and conditions of such a
handover, meaning at concessional rates, or for only for certain regions, are still not clear
-- leading to criticism that a voluntary patent pool is not a substitute for declaring that all
such medicines and vaccines should be declared global public goods during the COVID-19
pandemic.
Unlike clever capital, Trump's response to the COVID-19 vaccine is to thuggishly bully his
way through. He believes that with the unlimited money that the United States is now willing to
put into the vaccine efforts, it will either beat everybody else to the winning post, or
buy the company that is
successful . If this strategy succeeds, he can then use "his" COVID-19 vaccine as a new
instrument of global power. It is the United States that will then decide which countries get
the vaccine (and for how much), and which ones don't.
Trump's little problem is that the days of the United States being a sole global hegemon
passed decades ago. The United States has shown itself as a
fumbling giant and its epidemic response
shambolic . It has been unable to provide virus tests to its people in time, and failed to
stop the epidemic through containment/mitigation measures, which a number of other countries
have done.
China and the
EU have already agreed that any vaccine developed by them will be regarded as a public
good. Even without that, once a medicine or a vaccine is known to be successful, any country
with a reasonable scientific infrastructure can replicate the medicine or the vaccine, and
manufacture it locally. India in particular has one of the largest
generic drug and vaccine manufacturing capacities in the world. What prevents India, or any
country for that matter, from manufacturing COVID-19 vaccines or drugs once they are developed
-- only the empty threat of a failed hegemon on breaking patents?
Clearly the Trump and Johnson administrations are completely wrong in not supporting that
all COVID vaccines and medications be declared as public goods. This is an unprecedented
global threat requiring unprecedented global response.
But as a Canadian I have to reluctantly admit, there are legimate reasons to oppose the
WHO. Trump like a broken clock can be correct twice a day, even if he is wrong the other 1438
times a day.
The worst offence is that the WHO (World Health Organisation) is suppose to represent the
world, and yet it deliberately excludes Taiwan, which it a known part of the world with 24
million people.
Taiwan was the first to inform the WHO of human-to-human transmissions in December, but
was completely ignored. And Taiwan has best handled its response to the pandemic.
Personally I think that all countries should stop supporting the WHO until it restores
Taiwan's observer status it previous had until 2016. The only other reasonable option would
be to create an alternative health organisation to the WHO which does not exclude any part of
the world.
The WHO also has other failings, including corruption, exorbitant travel expenses, and an
unqualified president beholden to the CCP. But these failings pale in comparison to Taiwan's
exclusion, and hopefully the other failings can be fixed within the organisation.
"Just how evil does this situation become? Is the general leadership of the American
political economy trying to be evil just for the fun of it?"
And at what point does the general indifference to this state of affairs that still,
incredibly, obtains, turn over into mass outrage and condemnation?
Skrelli, Bayer, and all the rest are frelling evil. Extortion writ large, with easily preventable death and suffering.
it did NOT begin with trump.It's been there for most of my life. What will it take for ordinary people to get mad enough about it all to do something about
it?
Even in this article, the unspoken assumption is that our hands are somehow tied that these
corps have agency far beyond anyone else's but those corps can be seized, and exist only at
the pleasure of governments in the places they pretend to exist in.
They are a human creation an Egregore, set tottering about as if it were willful and
alive
but even Lefties treat them as untouchable godlike entities "oh, well lets appeal to
"Benevolent Capital, instead "
"Behold, I show you the last man.
'What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the last man,
and blinks.
The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race
is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.
'We have invented happiness,'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions
where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs
against him, for one needs warmth
One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the
entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much
exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.
No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels
different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.
'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink
One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one
has a regard for health.
'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink.""
As you note it's about profits. One of the disturbing condemnations of the now fading
American Century, which most USians remain contentedly oblivious to is that during their
watch as global hegemon, the US, in what can be seen, in the best light, as bad faith, worked
to undermine the democratic functionality of international cooperative organizations like the
WHO, the UN, etc.
Thus when emergencies arise such as international diplomatic crisis or pandemics, it is
found these organisations have been rendered untrustworthy, corrupted and unreliable;
unsuited to purpose. American exceptionalism?
It is clear now that the USA will not fund a national public health system to fight the
coronavirus epidemic. The only conclusion is the reason is to allow Pharmaceutical
Corporations to make huge profits by marketing patented drugs and vaccines to treat the
illness; if and when, they become available sometime in the future.
Due to incompetence, lack of money and bad messengering; the economic reopening of the USA
could kill close to a million Americans. To Republicans and Libertarians, this is of no
concern. Democrats may acknowledge the deaths but say they are unavoidable.
For the Elite keeping their wealth is more important than spending a portion to prevent
the huge costs in lives and treasure that will come once the Wuhan Coronavirus is established
across North America like the related common cold.
This is a teachable moment on the immorality of all "intellectual property". I am pleased to see that so many countries – other than the US and the UK –
can get together on the common decency of allowing everyone to live, and set that above the
"justice" of paying off intellectual property assignees. But these countries still have some
ways to go in understanding that this applies to all information. That the creation of
information can never be a living – in contrast to a living based on the creation of
essential goods and services, about which we are learning so much right now! – and that
information can never be owned.
They do not yet fully comprehend that all claims to own and extract rent from information
are in fact crimes against humanity.
The intention of granting copyrights and patents was noble, to provide a limited monopoly
on an invention or literary work for a limited period. IP has been distorted and twisted,
extended to insane time limits to protect works that for any common sense thinkers have
already become public domain (see, e.g. the Happy Birthday song, Mickey Mouse or
re-formulation of a drug that's gone out of patent). Software should have had its own IP
regime but that ship has sailed (thanks Bill G.).
Either a giant reform is due or people will ignore the law and infringe the IP. Chinese
companies do it with impunity. Maybe they're right to do so.
Patent applications for the top 20 offices, 2018
Rank Country Patent applications
1 China 1,542,002
2 U.S. 597,141
3 Japan 313,567
4 South Korea 209,992
If one sums up USA patent applications vs Asia (China, Japan, SK), it is USA 597K vs Asia
2066K.
So Asia is putting in patent applications, vs the USA, at a 3.46 multiple vs the USA.
It will be interesting to see if the USA attitude about the sanctity of intellectual
property changes when important key patents are held by the rest of the world.
Teachable moments. This could get really interesting if China or a non US & associated puppets develops
an effect Covid treatment first.
I will dream of something like this: China develops vaccine, offers it free to US on condition it reduce it's Dept of War &
Aggression by 80% and honor all existing and recently existing arms control agreement, and
withdraws it's Naval forces though out the world and confines them to the North Atlantic and
California coast.
I wonder if a geopolitically powerful nation/bloc of nations such as China/India/etc might
announce that they disregard pharma IP, & announce that they will adhere to the economist
Dr Dean Baker-type policy of open source pharma R&D/recipe publication, any private
manufacturer may manufacture & sell the resultant pharma SKU. I am referring to any type
of pharma or medical device (such as ventilators), not just a COVID-19 vaccine. I would
guesstimate that the "soft power" & goodwill generated by such a policy would be
extremely beneficial to those nation(s). Furthermore, the US if it tried to retaliate via
sanctions or other threats would get a corresponding additional decrease in soft power.
To be honest, in some instances Indian govt practices on pharma are quite bad. It is
extremely hard in some instances to recoup investments at prices they ask for.
"The American people are miserable amid the epidemic, and their president is an eccentric
who does not care about the safety of ordinary people and is good at passing the buck," Li
said.
Many analysts have noted the epidemic in the US might not end before the US election ,
and Trump's repeated emphasis on work resumption would not take off as long as the coronavirus
enjoys freedom to spread.
... ... ...
Ni Feng, director of the institute of American studies at the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences in Beijing, told the Global Times the death notice of COVID-19 victims on the New York
Times' front page could "deal a fatal blow to Trump's re-election" as most of the names on the
front page were elderly people, his potential voters.
The elderly are always conservative, and thus most are potentially Trump's voters, Ni
opined.
The voter turnout of the elderly is also higher than young people, said Ni, noting Trump's
behavior will make the firmest supporters change their mind, "facing the crisis of life."
The anxiety over Trump's standing with the Christian right surfaced after a pair of
surveys by reputable outfits earlier this month found waning confidence in the
administration's coronavirus response among key religious groups, with a staggering decline
in the president's favorability among white evangelicals and white Catholics. Both are
crucial constituencies that supported Trump by wide margins in 2016 and could sink his
reelection prospects if their turnout shrinks this fall.
The polls paint a bleak picture for Trump, who has counted on broadening his religious
support by at least a few percentage points to compensate for weakened appeal with women and
suburban populations. One GOP official said the dip in the president's evangelical support
also appeared in internal party polling, but disputed the notion that it had caused panic.
Another person close to the campaign described an April survey by the Public Religion
Research Institute, which showed a double-digit decline in Trump's favorability among white
evangelicals (-11), white Catholics (-12) and white mainline protestants (-18) from the
previous month, as "pretty concerning."
More:
Following the PRRI survey, which was conducted while Trump was a dominant presence at
televised daily briefings by his administration's coronavirus task force, Pew Research Center
released new data last week that showed a 7-point increase from April to May in white
Catholics who disapprove of Trump's response to the Covid-19 crisis and a 6-point decline
among white evangelicals who previously gave him positive marks.
The open-the-churches call from Trump today is just rhetorical. The president doesn't have
the power to re-open them; state governments do. The president is trying to send a signal that
he is on the side of churchgoers. Not sure that's going to do the trick. From Politico:
It's unlikely that critics of church closings alone are responsible for the decline in
Trump's favorability among critical religious demographics. According to the Pew survey, 43
percent of white evangelicals and 52 percent of white Catholics think the current
restrictions on public activity in their areas are appropriate versus 42 percent and 31
percent, respectively, who think fewer restrictions would be better. Greater shares of white
evangelicals and white Catholics also said they are more afraid about their state governments
lifting restrictions on public activity too soon than they are about leaving the restrictions
in place for too long.
Maybe the truth is that conservative Christians may prefer Trump to Biden on issues that
matter to them, but his handling of the global pandemic overrides everything else this year. No
doubt that many Christian voters would vote Trump no matter how he performed on pandemic
response.
Andrew Sullivan writes today:
A year ago precisely, Trump's approval rating was, in FiveThirtyEight's poll of polls,
53.8 percent disapprove, 41.1 percent approve. This week, the spread was 53.1 percent
disapprove and 43 percent approve. Almost identical. None of the events of the last year --
impeachment, plague, economic collapse -- have had anything but a trivial impact on public
opinion.
It is true also that Trump's knot of popular support–about 43 percent of the
electorate, based on approval surveys–is remarkably solid, willing to accept just about
anything he does or says so long as he continues to attack those dastardly elites.
But presidential elections also don't turn on any incumbent's base of support. Reelection
requires that a president build upon that base and create a governing coalition by bringing
in new converts through Oval Office achievement. Richard Nixon, a 43 percent president
following the 1968 election, pulled to his party much of the George Wallace constituency,
nearly 14 percent of the popular vote in 1968. The result was a reelection landslide.
Similarly, following the 1980 election Ronald Reagan pulled to his banner the so-called
Reagan Democrats, which contributed to his margin of victory in numerous congressional
battles and in his own landslide reelection in 1984.
Or consider the case of Bill Clinton, like Nixon a 43 percent president after his 1992
victory against incumbent George H. W. Bush and upstart candidate Ross Perot, who garnered 19
percent of the popular vote. Clinton had his head handed to him in the 1994 midterm elections
following a sub-par performance during his first two years in office. But after that he
brilliantly calibrated his leadership to capture a significant portion of the Perot vote.
Thus did he build on his base through performance in office and become a two-term
president.
Trump has proved himself incapable of this kind of political calibration. He can't even
talk to those Americans who might be receptive to his policies but haven't yet joined up. He
talks only to his base.
Directly challenging him, even when his numbers are wrong, appears to erode Mr. Trump's
trust, according to former officials, and ultimately he stops listening. In other words, the
officials who tell him things he doesn't want to believe are soon sidelined or fired.
Again, everybody knows that there is a solid rock of immovable Trump voters --
I'm guessing that the 44 percent of Republicans who believe that Bill Gates wants to inject
microchips into people with a coronavirus vaccine are part of that crowd -- but they are
not enough to win Trump a second term. What about everybody else? Why are those Christian
voters who had a favorable opinion of Trump now abandoning him? I'd say a lot of it has to do
with exhaustion. The country is facing a crisis like none it has seen in a century. It is
crashing the economy. We can re-open, but if people start getting sick again, everybody's going
to stay home. These people who are normally inclined to Trump, but now going off of him --
they're going to make the difference between victory and defeat for the president. And they're
worn out with all this instability, and the stupid, pointless drama.
I mean, look at this. Whatever you think of Jeff Sessions, he stood by Trump early, when few
others in Washington did. But he made the mistake of putting duty to the law above personal
loyalty to Trump. This is the kind of thing that once upon a time, conservatives thought worth
supporting. Trump has never forgiven him for it. Sessions is running for his old Senate seat
back -- and Trump is trying to keep him from getting it. Look:
. @realdonaldtrump Look, I know
your anger, but recusal was required by law. I did my duty & you're damn fortunate I did.
It protected the rule of law & resulted in your exoneration. Your personal feelings don't
dictate who Alabama picks as their senator, the people of Alabama do. https://t.co/QQKHNAgmiE
See what I mean? What is the point of doing this to Jeff Sessions, except spite? I mean,
come on, Jeff Sessions? Really? There are a certain number of conservatives who are just
fed up with crap like this, and can't stand the thought of four more years of it.
That's my guess -- but then, I'm talking about somebody like myself: never a fan of Trump,
and genuinely frightened about what a Democrat in the White House would do, especially if the
Dems take the Senate (which they will likely do if Trump loses in a landslide). But nobody
knows what the future holds for the country in this pandemic, either in terms of public health
or the economy. Can we risk four more years of this chaos and craziness and overall
incompetence, especially not knowing what's ahead on the virus and the economy? Is that
prospect scarier than a Democratic president and Democratic Senate naming and confirming
judges?
Maybe. I did not imagine anything like this in January, but then, I didn't imagine that we
would get to Memorial Day weekend with almost 100,000 Americans dead, and 40 million
unemployed.
UPDATE: Reader Daniel (Not Larison)'s comment resonates with me:
This Pandemic, and the response to it, and the response of the public to the response, has
left me utterly exhausted.
My Facebook feed is getting crammed with my conservative friend's fear-mongering about how
(a) the virus is just a "cold", (b) the official death counts are greatly exaggerated
(through wide-spread incompetence and fraud), (c) the left is using this crisis to destroy
our freedoms, (d) masks are tyranny, (e) Trump's response has been perfect, (f) blue state
governors want to gain power and destroy their economies just to make Trump look bad, and (g)
the people who died would have died from something else any way. Sprinkled among these
responses are things like the Gates microchip thing, 5g causes the virus, it's really Obama's
fault, etc.
Sometimes they post some actual true information, like the errors of 4 states in
double-counting positive test results or that congressional democrats did try to pack the
COVID-19 relief bill with a wishlist of progressive causes. But mostly I see wild assertions
and baseless accusations. Anyone who agrees with Trump is smart and can be trusted, anyone
who disagrees with him is stupid and/or evil.
It truly is remarkable how even this kind of a crisis has been politicized. There is
nearly a perfect correlation between COVID-19 skepticism and Trump support. Tens of thousands
of health professionals and medical examiners committing fraud or incompetent by including
COVID-19 as a cause of death? Certainly, if it makes Trump look bad. Dozens of other nations
adopting similar policies to blue governors? Yeah, they're crashing their economies because
they hate Trump, too.
It is utter madness. Rather than respecting genuine differences in opinion, rather than
arguing with facts and data, we are responding with hatred, contempt, and raw emotion.
The left certainly is not above this–as we have seen in issues like transgenderism
and Project 1619, the left certainly has engaged in this and continues to do so. I've lost
count of how many liberal friends I've had to stop following on Facebook because of their
utter contempt not just of Trump, but of anyone who would dare express support for him or his
policies. And their cursing like sailors they wear like a badge of honor, as of it's a mark
of liberation.
Weimar America, truly. We're facing a dual crisis of health and economic collapse that we
hadn't seen in a century, and rather than rising to the occasion, many of us are just
attacking each other. It reminds me of what Josephus wrote in "The Jewish War" about the
Jews, under siege by Roman forces in an incredibly over packed Jerusalem, were busy killing
each other rather than facing the enemies outside.
Perhaps I am just a pessimist. Certainly not all Americans are rigidly divided into Team
Red and Team Blue–maybe not even the majority. But enough are for me to lose much of my
hope for the future of this country.
Yet I know God is in control, and this could very well be a manifestation of his judgment
on our wicked, wicked culture. Or even from a secular perspective, our culture has built such
a toxic response to crisis that we cannot survive. Either way, without change, I cannot see
us surviving as a unified nation and people (if we truly are any more) too far into the
future.
Rod, there is one thing you left out of the article: Democrats have made it absolutely
clear that they hate white evangelicals and their campaign rhetoric will be quite
incendiary on any issues of Christianity and society. At best, they will tell evangelicals
that they should be more like the so-called Religious Left (Sojourners, Natalie Bolz-Weber,
etc.) and at worst, they will sound like Beto O'Rourke when he called for taxing churches
that did not change their theology to welcome homosexuality and transgenderism.
Biden already has declared that transgender rights are "today's civil rights issue," and
I expect him to double down on his commitment there. Furthermore, given his tendency to say
outrageous things, you can bet he will be going right up to the line to where he declares
the Bible to be hate speech, and he is going to outright threaten evangelicals. He will go
radical on abortion rights and let it be known that churches that do not support open-ended
abortions to the time of birth (paid for by taxpayers) are going to face the wrath of his
administration.
Does anyone believe Biden will be silent on these issues or be anything but in-your-face
incendiary? Now, Donald Trump will not respond very well, since Trump doesn't respond very
well on anything and he almost surely will say and do things that will partially neutralize
this advantage that Biden will drop into his lap. Nonetheless, Joe Biden will be absolutely
clear that he hates evangelicals and means to do them harm if he is elected. Given that
much of secular America feels the same way, it probably will get him votes on the left.
In political years, five months is like a few generations these days. Trump is not anyone's
idea of an effective president but I think it is way too early to see how corona affects
him. I suspect most of his supporters think this is a hoax anyway and the people really
freaked out by corona weren't voting for Trump in the first place.
As to Trump's performance on corona, how is that going to be assessed? I'd assume by
lives lost and economic damage. But corona has hit a lot of countries. If Trump's bumblings
actually had an effect, how would we know except by comparison? In the good 'ol moneyball
stats there is a
metric called "value over replacement player" (VORP) where you compare the performance your
player in question to the performance you would get from the average replacement. Just
because you are disappointed in the performance of your player doesn't mean you can expect
to get much
better from replacing him. It could turn out he's close to the average.
So if we are looking at stats to assess Trump, we are gonna have to moneyball it. Which
leader are we going to compare Trump to? Which country "did things right"? What's our
baseline? Our average replacement player? I don't think any of us can say right now which
countries did things right. It is too early, we don't know enough about corona and we don't
know the ways in which the decisions of leaders have affected the outcome or failed to
affect it. In terms of deaths per million, U.S. seems pretty average. Plenty of countries
in Europe with leaders who "listen to experts" have far higher deaths per million at the
moment. Belgium, Sweden, Netherlands, UK, Italy, France, Spain all look worse than us.
None of this is to attribute any real skill to Trump, but in a situation where there is
no prospective
criteria by which to identify who has the wisdom to navigate the situation (only
retrospective analysis of the data of countries that all tried different things) you might
rather be lucky than good.
I'm genuinely puzzled as to where you and Politico are coming to this conclusion based on
the evidence presented. Looking at the data used in the article, it appears that Trump's
approval rating among certain groups felt a bump around the time when the main COVID panic
started, and then, a month later decreased to....where it was at the beginning of the year.
His overall approval/disapproval rating is still more or less the same as it had been
throughout his presidency, and more interestingly, Trump's approval among his "core base"
has increased significantly compared to 2017, not to mention 2015.
The other key fact embedded in the data is that Trump's approval among certain groups
was still considerably low during November 2016 , much lower than it is today for
example. This speaks to the simple truth that the majority of people who vote for Trump
aren't necessarily that fond of the man, but they still pulled the lever for him. Until
there is hard evidence that the number of people who absolutely will not vote for
Trump increases, we can't make any conclusions as to how more or less likely Trump's
chances are in November.
One last item to note is that the worst cases by far occurred in heavily Democratic
districts, and, as the reports explained, were the main areas where this loss of support
among Christians was reported. On the one hand, it's very likely that these people, to be
blunt, wouldn't have had much chance at pushing their districts to the Republican side
anyway and thus their support is not nearly as important as those in swing states. On the
other hand, to be a bit cheeky, given how poorly Democrat-run areas have fared in this
crisis, why on earth would you want another Democrat in the highest executive office?
I thought we'd seen into Trump's soul over the past five years, but the way he's revealing
himself now is astounding. The man is just unraveling, all his spitefulness and
sociopathies bubbling to the surface. There's nothing left to him now but his impotent
rage. Maybe the people who didn't want to see the truth of the man can't help but see now.
He's a failure, on a world stage, and his self-image is that he's a genius whose wise
leadership will bring us all peace, contentment and prosperity. Naturally, he's throwing a
temper tantrum and lashing out in all directions.
I think you underestimate the power of fear and self-delusion. Nearly all Republicans have
been convinced that all Democrats are nearly satanic. For the next week conservative media
will dwell relentlessly and obsessively on Biden's recent stupid statement while ignoring
whatever additional nonsense comes out of the White House. (Did you know there's a recent
study showing that widespread use of hydroxychloroquine (sp?) is probably bad? You wouldn't
if you read conservative media) It's strange to live in a country where a substantial
number of people can no longer see the good in other citizens, but here we are
Oh absolutely. Speaking for myself only, I regard Republican leadership, people like Mitch
McConnell, Pompeo, and of course our president as various mixtures of stupid and evil, and
their more devoted followers as pretty close to the same. The people who vote Republican
because they always vote Republican and don't pay much attention to politics, like members
of my family, I regard simply as incurious, but as family I still love them.
But I still think Democrats are a lot more justified in their disdain, as implied by
Kevin Drum in a recent post:
Did you know the candidate for the U.S. Senate in Oregon is a Q follower? And that when
the National Review advised Republicans to abandon her the majority of the comments on the
page retorted that Democrats are worse and more deluded and more crazy than Q?
This Pandemic, and the response to it, and the response of the public to the response, has
left me utterly exhausted.
My Facebook feed is getting crammed with my conservative friend's fear-mongering about
how (a) the virus is just a "cold", (b) the official death counts are greatly exaggerated
(through wide-spread incompetence and fraud), (c) the left is using this crisis to destroy
our freedoms, (d) masks are tyranny, (e) Trump's response has been perfect, (f) blue state
governors want to gain power and destroy their economies just to make Trump look bad, and
(g) the people who died would have died from something else any way. Sprinkled among these
responses are things like the Gates microchip thing, 5g causes the virus, it's really
Obama's fault, etc.
Sometimes they post some actual true information, like the errors of 4 states in
double-counting positive test results or that congressional democrats did try to pack the
COVID-19 relief bill with a wishlist of progressive causes. But mostly I see wild
assertions and baseless accusations. Anyone who agrees with Trump is smart and can be
trusted, anyone who disagrees with him is stupid and/or evil.
It truly is remarkable how even this kind of a crisis has been politicized. There is
nearly a perfect correlation between COVID-19 skepticism and Trump support. Tens of
thousands of health professionals and medical examiners committing fraud or incompetent by
including COVID-19 as a cause of death? Certainly, if it makes Trump look bad. Dozens of
other nations adopting similar policies to blue governors? Yeah, they're crashing their
economies because they hate Trump, too.
It is utter madness. Rather than respecting genuine differences in opinion, rather than
arguing with facts and data, we are responding with hatred, contempt, and raw emotion.
The left certainly is not above this--as we have seen in issues like transgenderism and
Project 1619, the left certainly has engaged in this and continues to do so. I've lost
count of how many liberal friends I've had to stop following on Facebook because of their
utter contempt not just of Trump, but of anyone who would dare express support for him or
his policies. And their cursing like sailors they wear like a badge of honor, as of it's a
mark of liberation.
Weimar America, truly. We're facing a dual crisis of health and economic collapse that
we hadn't seen in a century, and rather than rising to the occasion, many of us are just
attacking each other. It reminds me of what Josephus wrote in "The Jewish War" about the
Jews, under siege by Roman forces in an incredibly over packed Jerusalem, were busy killing
each other rather than facing the enemies outside.
Perhaps I am just a pessimist. Certainly not all Americans are rigidly divided into Team
Red and Team Blue--maybe not even the majority. But enough are for me to lose much of my
hope for the future of this country.
Yet I know God is in control, and this could very well be a manifestation of his
judgment on our wicked, wicked culture. Or even from a secular perspective, our culture has
built such a toxic response to crisis that we cannot survive. Either way, without change, I
cannot see us surviving as a unified nation and people (if we truly are any more) too far
into the future.
I think Trump entered oval office as a political tabula rasa. Republicans could have
moulded him into anything policy-wise, since he lacked knowledge of washington insider on
how to run things. So they did. Republicans turned him into a traditional, respectable
republican corporatist stock market whisperer President(tm). I think Republicans deserve to
lose because of their terrible policies and incompetence, though I don't see how democrats
deserve to win, because of their terrible policies and incompetence. But then again, it's
not like policies matter. As Cuomo demonstrates, all you need is good media coverage. It's
frustrating, that Trump is likely going to lose, because his PR is worse, not because his
policies have been terrible.
Republicans didn't have to work too hard given how willfully ignorant Trump is. All he's
ever been interested in doing is brandishing his brand and lining his pockets. There's
nothing there but endless appetite and resentment. He has no policies save for
self-aggrandizement.
Even out of office, he has been exposed to the addictive thrill of cheering crowds, and so
he will not fade from the scene. Certain Progressivists are salivating at the prospect of
hauling him and his associates through the courts, but that will not stop his rallies, and
will only keep his name in lights for a long time.
The Democratic Party leadership - - or "Donorship" - - wants to return to their version
of normal, getting rich(er) off globalism. The neocons want to get back to endless wars.
And Trump's Troopers will be there, carrying their AR-15 clones to protests and occupying
national park rest areas. It will be chaotic. One can easily foresee more "Ruby Ridge"
scenarios in our collective future.
Shy of a nation-wide revival of religion or of the civil religion, it won't get better
for a long time.
Those who liken this time to how WW1 changed the world forever are partly right. But
they miss that the world is always changing forever. And yet it is always the same. Face
it, the last half of the 20th Century was an unusually easy time for Americans. We are now
moving into what the rest of the world, throughout history, considers normal.
Predictions are difficult, especially about the future. Who wll vote for Creepy Joe? that is the question. But it is true that many
people who voted for trump in 2016 hoping for changes will not vote for him. Most will not vote at all. With his foreign policies and
smug warmonger Pompeo at the State Department he lost all anti-war independents block. With COVID-19 fiasco he lost a large part of
working class -- which was most severely hit by the lockdown as well as small business support.
Notable quotes:
"... Look at how Trump is getting killed among people that don't like either candidate. And how he's losing independents solidly. That's your danger zone, not the left. He won in 2016 in large part because he had those two in the bag. ..."
Mitt Romney was treated by the mainstream media with derision and ridicule, portrayed as an out-of-touch plutocrat who babbled
about binders full of women. They depicted him as "a wealthy 1950s sitcom dad who liked firing poor people. Trump will attacked in
the same way
Donald Trump captured the presidency in 2016 in part because he perceived, alone among presidential contenders that year, that
a chasm had opened up between the country's arrogant meritocratic elite and vast numbers of citizens who felt the elites had turned
on them and were leading the country astray. But another factor was the perception of many voters that Barack Obama's second term
had been a mild failure (following a mild first-term success; hence his 2012 reelection). Incumbent performance in office remains
a potent factor in presidential elections.
And that's why Donald Trump likely will lose the presidency come November. His performance, thoroughly at variance from his
blustery rhetoric, will have rendered him, in the eyes of a majority of Americans, ineligible for rehire. His is not the kind
of record that normally leads to a two-term presidency or to party retention of the White House when the incumbent is not on the
ballot. Viewed from this perspective, Trump looks like a goner.
Trump supporters will of course recoil at this prediction. In disbelief, they will point to the intensity of his followers
and the fecklessness of his opposition. And it is true that former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic candidate,
appears hapless as he hunkers down in his Delaware basement and projects himself with a certain halting awkwardness. But history
tells us that voters focus far more on incumbent performance, which can be sharply defined, than on predictions of challenger
performance, which are wispy at best.
It is true also that Trump's knot of popular support–about 43 percent of the electorate, based on approval surveys–is remarkably
solid, willing to accept just about anything he does or says so long as he continues to attack those dastardly elites.
But presidential elections also don't turn on any incumbent's base of support. Reelection requires that a president build upon
that base and create a governing coalition by bringing in new converts through Oval Office achievement.
With Trump, I expect a "surprise" (and other various dirty tricks) here on out.
As I've noted before, the Burisma nonsense may end up backfiring. Not only did it get him impeached (even though he wasn't
removed from office), but it may innoculate Biden from further such surprises--there will be a presumption, if anything scandalous
comes from out of left field, that it might well be another attempt at rat-f***ing.
(And Biden has been equally fortunate in his accusers from the left; as the Tara Reade allegations seem to be falling apart.
He's not entirely in the clear--the vagueness of the allegations prevent Biden from mounting an affirmative defense, such as
an alibi, but right now he seems to be winning the credibility battle on that front).
The Tara Reade allegations aren't "falling apart." They're being smothered. They're either ignored, or dismissed with a "Biden says it never happened? Oh, OK....never mind" attitude.
A QAnnon crazy just won the Oregon GOP senate primary. Not only is Trump losing he is taking the entire GOP down with him. Either the GOP clears up the nuts or the nuts take over.
I agree. Trump has taken politics to a new low. When he's not on teleprompter, his "speeches" are more of a stand-up act where
he exaggerates his accomplishments ("the best ever"..."record" everything) and lobs personal insults at his perceived enemies
"loser,""incompetent," "the worst").
He has NO intention of expanding his base. He's happy to play to their adoration. And his cultists don't want him to "pivot
and change." They cheer him on.
That this is what so many people in this country want from a president is appalling.
He proved that in '16. Rather, we did. We the people made it happen. DJT just happens to be the means by which we re-made the
American political landscape. Leftist Democrats still haven't caught up.
They learned nothing from 2016 and after...nothing. They still cling to Washington establishment politics like a communist
to The Party. Power in a handful of politicians is all that matters to them. They'll sooner or later see that the people are
the source of our government.
TISO you seem like a pretty reasonable guy generally.
Look at how Trump is getting killed among people that don't like either candidate. And how he's losing independents
solidly. That's your danger zone, not the left. He won in 2016 in large part because he had those two in the bag.
I'm in those groups and voted for him then - I won't repeat this year. He was a good statement to make in 2016 but for me
that's now made. Personally he looks like a real idiot handling a crisis but I don't like his personality cult, I don't like
his floppiness with the ruling elite, and I especially don't like his turning immigrants into the white male of the right.
I hate idpol and he's just refined a right wing version of it.
My two cents. No doubt I'll be back to voting Republicans in 22 or 24.
Nice post!!!!!!! Trump is indeed losing the indie vote as well as a sliver of the true conservative vote. The guy is only a
shade or two better than having a president Camacho from Idiocracy. Trump won both the GOP nomination and the general election
because he was the only GOP candidate that said what the majority of GOP voters wanted to hear and was the only candidate that
didn't come off as an Establishment clone. On top of that, Hilary was not a well liked candidate(either was Trump) as two thirds
of GOP and Dem voters didn't like their candidate, but disliked the other just a bit more. It is sad that we are in the same
situation in 2020, in which there really isn't a really good candidate to choose from
Guy was a moron for his famous line to a GOP crowd insinuating that half the people in the country were freeloaders. Not too
far fetched of a statement, but absolutely a campaign killer. They indeed did depict him as a rather wealthy 1950's Mr Cleaver
type that was a job killer, but that wasn't far off the mark either. The banking cartel had their boy in office already so
there was no need for a change, thus the rather stale, boring, and easily targeted Romney was hung out to dry.
He "defeated" the ISIS Caliphate? And here i was under the impression that Iran was a Shia country and Syria was mostly secular,
while ISIS was a product of Salafist and Wahabist American allies like the Saudis?
This commenter epitomizes everything wrong with the Fox News cheerleading devotee. So consumed by the cult of Personality
that is Trump and "owning the Libs" that they can't see they have gotten nothing from Trump. No immigration reform, no wall,
no end to Middle East adventurism..... Just "tough tweets"
LETS LOOK AT THE FEW THINGS HE HAS DONE...He along with Kim Kardashian put forth the "First Step Act" freeing tens of thousands
of mostly inner city felons; the situation in the Middle East exponentially worse "thanks" to his rhetoric, loose usage of
missiles on countries WE ARE NOT at war with along with ASSASSINATING NATIONAL HEROES/MILITARY COMMANDERS of other sovereign
nations we are not at war with; he passed a corporate tax cut, Trump has focussed on spreading LGBT values to Africa and abroad,
and after attacking NAFTA for two decades passed "NAFTA 2.0", and has consistently made this country look even worse than it
normally has over the past 40 years.
If Israel isn't your priority in regards to the embassy moves or if your not a corporate head benefiting from Trumps "we
need more immigration than ever before" glut of cheap third world labor, then you should see him as an unmitigated disaster.
Look beyond the Grifters like Charlie Kirk and Sean Hannity.
The ISIS caliphate was defeated. ISIS still exists. One cannot destroy an ideology on the battlefield. The caliphate was their
"country" that they carved out of Syria. Virtually ALL of the rebels in Syria, even the non-ISIS ones are Sunni, not Shia.
The Shia are on the side of the Syrian government. That includes Iran.
Iran was not mentioned for some reason!
Iranians were the first to recognize ISIL was an arm of Israel/UAE/US axis to destabilize not only Syria but any country that
stood up to the axis. Then the Russian read the message on the wall and got involved.
Of course they did. Any decent economic/business magazine/ web site/blog was saying as far back as last September that the
FED was running out of "ammo" to forestall a collapse that was going to happen late this summer or early fall, then the virus
hits to take the blame for the poor economy instead of where it belongs and that is with the Federal Reserve and co. Now we
are hearing we are going to get QE to infinity and beyond, which basically means the globalists are tanking the dollar for
probably a global digital currency sometime in the not too distant future.
"Grandma Killer" Cuomo Sent 4,300 Patients Back To Nursing Homes Despite Positive
COVID-19 Tests by Tyler Durden Fri, 05/22/2020 - 17:25 Earlier
this month, a reporter at one of NY Gov Andrew Cuomo's daily press briefings asked the governor
about reports that the state issued guidance calling for hospitals to return thousands of
patients who had tested positive for COVID-19 to nursing homes or long-term care facilities
where they lived.
Somehow, despite the horrifying notion that Cuomo deliberately sent patients back to nursing
homes where they unleashed some of the deadliest outbreaks in the country, the governor readily
owned up to the decision, and insisted public health officials believed this to be the best
option to prevent the patients from just hanging around the hospital.
With the benefit of hindsight, we now see that the hospital bed shortages that the US had
prepared for never came to pass. So, not only did this decision lead to thousands of deaths, it
was also totally unnecessary.
Because as the Associated Press reported Friday morning, an investigation discovered that
more than 4,000 nursing home patients who had tested positive for COVID-19 were returned to
their care facilities due to this state order.
More than 4,300 recovering coronavirus patients were sent to New York's already vulnerable
nursing homes under a controversial state directive that was ultimately scrapped amid
criticisms it was accelerating the nation's deadliest outbreaks, according to a count by The
Associated Press.
AP compiled its own tally to find out how many COVID-19 patients were discharged from
hospitals to nursing homes under the March 25 directive after New York's Health Department
declined to release its internal survey conducted two weeks ago. It says it is still
verifying data that was incomplete.
The issue has become a huge problem for Cuomo, who has been labeled "the grandma killer" by
critics. When confronted with the data by the AP, the state health department declined to
comment. One individual quoted by the AP called it "the single dumbest decision" made during
the response to the pandemic.
And guess what - this decision had nothing to do with President Trump. While Cuomo of course
tried to deflected criticism to the Trump administration by claiming that the decision stemmed
from federal guidance, the AP pointed out that "few states went as far as New York and
neighboring New Jersey, which has the second-most care home deaths, in discharging hospitalized
coronavirus patients to nursing homes. California followed suit but loosened its requirement
following intense criticism."
Whatever the full number, nursing home administrators, residents' advocates and relatives
say i t has added up to a big and indefensible problem for facilities that even Gov. Andrew
Cuomo -- the main proponent of the policy -- called "the optimum feeding ground for this
virus."
"It was the single dumbest decision anyone could make if they wanted to kill people,"
Daniel Arbeeny said of the directive, which prompted him to pull his 88-year-old father out
of a Brooklyn nursing home where more than 50 people have died. His father later died of
COVID-19 at home.
"This isn't rocket science," Arbeeny said. "We knew the most vulnerable - the elderly and
compromised - are in nursing homes and rehab centers."
Told of the AP's tally, the Health Department said late Thursday it "can't comment on data
we haven't had a chance to review, particularly while we're still validating our own
comprehensive survey of nursing homes admission and re-admission data in the middle of
responding to this global pandemic."
Cuomo didn't reverse the order until May 10. According to the directive, nursing homes could
"refuse" to take in the patients if they weren't "equipped" to handle them. But unsurprisingly,
no nursing homes did so - since this would be tantamount to admitting that the facilities
weren't safe .
Cuomo, a Democrat, on May 10 reversed the directive, which had been intended to help free
up hospital beds for the sickest patients as cases surged. But he continued to defend it this
week , saying he didn't believe it contributed to the more than 5,800 nursing and adult care
facility deaths in New York -- more than in any other state -- and that homes should have
spoken up if it was a problem.
"Any nursing home could just say, 'I can't handle a COVID person in my facility,'" he
said, although the March 25 order didn't specify how homes could refuse, saying that "no
resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the (nursing home) solely based" on
confirmed or suspected COVID-19.
Over a month later, on April 29, the Health Department clarified that homes should not
take any new residents if they were unable to meet their needs, including a checklist of
standards for coronavirus care and prevention.
And according to the AP, even the most well-equipped nursing homes in the state saw the
trickle of COVID patients turn into a flood that quickly overwhelmed their ability to cope.
Across the country, thousands of nursing home residents and staff have succumbed to the
illness.
Gurwin Jewish, a 460-bed home on Long Island, seemed well-prepared for the coronavirus in
early March, with movable walls to seal off hallways for the infected. But after the state
order, a trickle of recovering COVID-19 patients from local hospitals turned into a flood of
58 people.
More walls were put up, but other residents nonetheless began falling sick and dying. In
the end, 47 Gurwin residents died of confirmed or suspected COVID-19.
The state order "put staff and residents at great risk," CEO Stuart Almer said. "We can't
draw a straight line from bringing in someone positive to someone catching the disease, but
we're talking about elderly, fragile and vulnerable residents."
Nationally, over 35,500 people have died from coronavirus outbreaks at nursing homes and
long-term care facilities, about a third of the overall death toll, according to the AP's
running tally.
Bottom line: Irony of ironies, the most sanctimonious blue-state governors, who used every
conceivable pretext to bash President Trump, also allowed the largest numbers of vulnerable
patients to die because of what amounts to sheer bureaucratic idiocy.
The scandal has earned Cuomo a new nickname that has been heavily suppressed by the likes of
Google, Facebook and Twitter: The "Grandma Killer".
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is facing new criticism after the Associated Press reported Friday that a
state directive led to over 4,300 still recovering coronavirus patients being sent to New
York's "already vulnerable nursing homes."
"It was a death sentence," tweeted Daniel Choi, a doctor at
the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell. He called the directive
a "horrendous idea" and "definitely not something any doctor taking care of nursing home
patients would have signed off on."
The state health department
directive (pdf), issued March 25, barred nursing homes from requiring patients deemed
"medically stable" from being tested for Covid-19 prior to admission. Cuomo, a Democrat,
rescinded the order May 10, but not before thousands of infected patients likely entered
nursing homes and contributed to the coronavirus's spread.
The estimated number tallied by the AP amounts to what would have been a "big and
indefensible problem for facilities," the outlet reported.
From the AP :
"It was the single dumbest decision anyone could make if they wanted to kill people,"
Daniel Arbeeny said of the directive, which prompted him to pull his 88-year-old father out
of a Brooklyn nursing home where more than 50 people have died. His father later died of
Covid-19 at home.
"This isn't rocket science," Arbeeny said. "We knew the most vulnerable -- the elderly and
compromised -- are in nursing homes and rehab centers."
CBS New York reported
Friday that the conoravirus has taken the lives of almost 5% of nursing home residents in the
state, and this week the Cuomo tried to deflect blame for the directive.
"Why did the state do that with Covid patients in nursing homes?" asked Cuomo. "It's because
the state followed President Trump's CDC guidelines. So they should ask President Trump."
In an
op-ed at the Guardian on Wednesday questioning the recent accolades heaped on the New York
governor -- including suggestions that Cuomo run for president -- journalists Lyta Gold and
Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs magazine write that "Cuomo should be one of the most loathed
officials in America right now. "
Gold and Robinson argue that blame for New York's high death toll from the virus should sit
largely with Cuomo.
"Federal failures played a role, of course, but this tragedy was absolutely due, in part, to
decisions by the governor," they wrote, citing as examples his failure to take swift action,
delays in imposing social distancing measures, Medicaid cuts both before and after the start of
the pandemic, and his partnership with Silicon Valley billionaires to "reimagine
education."
"This is the problem: for too long, Democrats have measured their politicians by 'whether
they are better than Republicans,' wrote Gold and Robinson. "This sets the bar very low indeed,
and means that Democrats end up settling for incompetent and amoral leaders who betray
progressive values again and again."
Andrew Cuomo may be the most popular
politician in the country. ... All of which is bizarre, because Cuomo should be one of the
most loathed officials in America right now. ProPublica
recently released a report outlining catastrophic missteps by Cuomo and the New York City
mayor, Bill de Blasio, which probably resulted in many thousands of needless coronavirus cases.
ProPublica offers some appalling numbers contrasting what happened in New York with the
outbreak in California. By mid-May, New York City alone had almost 20,000 deaths, while in San
Francisco there had been only 35, and New York state as a whole suffered 10 times as many
deaths as California.
Federal failures played a role, of course, but this tragedy was absolutely due, in part, to
decisions by the governor. Cuomo initially "reacted to De Blasio's idea for closing down New
York City with derision", saying it "was dangerous" and "served only to scare people". He said
the "seasonal flu was a graver worry". A spokesperson for Cuomo "refused to say if the governor
had ever read the state's pandemic plan". Later, Cuomo would blame the press, including the New
York Times for failing to say "Be careful, there's a virus in China that may be in the United
States?" even though the Times wrote nearly 500 stories on the
virus before the state acted. Experts told ProPublica that "had New York imposed its extreme
social distancing measures a week or two earlier, the death toll might have been cut by half or
more".
But delay was not the only screw-up. Elderly prisoners
have died of coronavirus because New York has failed to act on their medical parole
requests. As Business Insider documented:
"Testing was
slow . Nonprofit social-service agencies that serve the most vulnerable
couldn't get answers either . And medical experts like the former CDC director Tom Frieden
said 'so many deaths could have been prevented' had New York issued its stay-at-home order
just 'days earlier' than it did. On March 19, when New York's schools had already been
closed, Cuomo said 'in many ways, the fear is more dangerous than the virus.'"
The governor has failed to take responsibility for the obvious failures, consistently
blaming others and at one point even saying " governors
don't do pandemics ". (Actually, some governors just don't read their state's pandemic
plans.) But much of the press has ignored this, focusing instead on Cuomo's aesthetic
presentation: his poise during press conferences, his dramatic statements about "taking
responsibility" (even when he obviously hasn't), and his invisible good looks. ...
There's something disturbing about Cuomo being hailed as the hero of the pandemic when he
should rightly be one of the villains. As Business Insider notes, he is now only able to attain
praise for his actions because his earlier failures made those actions necessary. He's lauded
for addressing a problem that he himself partly caused. Of course, part of this is because
Donald Trump has
bungled the coronavirus response even more badly , so that Cuomo – by not being a
complete buffoon – looks like a capable statesman by contrast. But this is the problem:
for too long, Democrats have measured their politicians by "whether they are better than
Republicans". This sets the bar very low indeed, and means that Democrats end up settling for
incompetent and amoral leaders who betray progressive values again and again.
"... > How about we follow WHO's rule zero: test, test and test? ..."
"... Why the USA did not implemented entry/exist temperature checks (even at airports) I do not understand. The richest nation in the world has the government which is probably the most inept and disfunctional ..."
"... It looks like this is mainly the disease of megacities and industries with closely packed people (ships, meatpacking plants, Amazon warepuses) . And a large part of large cities infrastructure such as subways and air-conditioned building, hotels and shops are ideal environment for spreading of the virus. ..."
"... Another interesting feature of this virus is that it simply revealed how unhealthy the USA population generally is. For example, the epidemic of obesity now is tightly intermixed with the epidemic of COVID-19. Within the limits of the neoliberal social system very little can be done about it: for profit medicine makes is more fragile and create multiple avenue of abusing people. ..."
Do you understand that the current polymerase tests have 20-30% of false positives?
So if everybody in the USA is tested around 60-80 million people in the USA would be
deemed infected. I suspect that a very large percentage of "asymptomatics" are in reality
false positives.
We need to distinguish between the necessary measures and fearmongering. I suspect that in
the case of polymerase test the mantra "test, test, test" is close to the latter. This is s
rather expensive test and money probably can be better spend distributing masks to the
population. That would instantly give a larger effect. The simple measure that in the USA was
not done. Just for that Fauci should be fired and probably tried, IMHO.
The same is probably true with the distribution of oxymeters too: people with lows reading
need oxygen. As simple as that. That probably will cut hospitalizations in half.
My impression is that temperature and oxymeter testing might be a proxy for polymerase
testing and much cheaper: if oxygen saturation is less then 90% the person need to be
isolated/treated with oxygen
Why the USA did not implemented entry/exist temperature checks (even at airports) I do
not understand. The richest nation in the world has the government which is probably the most
inept and disfunctional
It looks like this is mainly the disease of megacities and industries with closely
packed people (ships, meatpacking plants, Amazon warepuses) . And a large part of large
cities infrastructure such as subways and air-conditioned building, hotels and shops are
ideal environment for spreading of the virus.
Even reasonable prophylactic measures do not work that well in large cities. Slums and
homeless are and will be hotspots.
Even at work enforcing prophylactic measures is non trivial. You need to change mask each
2 hours when you are working inside. How many people will do that ?
I think there is not way out other then clench your teeth and go forward adapting the
behavior as new information about the virus emerge.
For example individual supply of air in planes, trains and buses (which existed in old
planes and some buses ) might be an important psychological (and with better filters medical)
measure required.
Also Cruise ships "experiments" suggest that only around 20% of population is susceptible
to the virus. Even among Wuhan medics who started working with coronavirus patients without
wearing protective equipment only around half got the disease. The simplistic assumption that
100% of people is susceptible is just a myth propagated by fearmongers for fun and
profit.
Another interesting feature of this virus is that it simply revealed how unhealthy the USA
population generally is. For example, the epidemic of obesity now is tightly intermixed with
the epidemic of COVID-19. Within the limits of the neoliberal social system very little can
be done about it: for profit medicine makes is more fragile and create multiple avenue of
abusing people.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will be checking
passengers' temperatures at select airports next week.
People familiar with the matter told The
Wall Street Journal that additional details would be unveiled in the near term. The program
is expected to roll out at 12 airports next week and will cost $20 million to implement.
Thermal check fees will be waived for travelers and likely expensed to the federal
government.
The coronavirus reminds us that the gap between what we think we know and what we
actually do know is enormous.
Dr. Deborah Birx, White House coronavirus response
coordinator, shows off charts with members of the coronavirus task force during a briefing in
response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the
White House on Tuesday, March 31, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The
Washington Post via Getty Images)
May 13, 2020
|
12:01 am
Matt
Purple St. Louis Federal Reserve watchers, rejoice! And yes, I'm talking to both of you. The St.
Louis Fed is freshly relevant this week thanks to a paper it
published back in 2007 that examined the economic effects of the 1918 Spanish flu. Drawing
on old newspaper articles, local surveys, and other studies -- national data back then was
scarce -- the report found that the damage done to businesses by the outbreak was both severe
and short-lived. The impact on the next generation, however, was longer-lasting. Those in utero
during the pandemic went on to attain less education and lower incomes than had previous
generations.
What we wouldn't give for that kind of glimpse from the future today. The coronavirus has
killed hundreds of thousands while sledgehammering the economy, leaving close to a quarter of
working-age Americans either unemployed or
underemployed. And we still have no idea how it will end. It may be that this recession is
similar to the one in 1918, cutting deeply but easing rapidly. Or it may be that we're in for
another lost decade of stubborn unemployment and stagnant growth. It may be that the virus is
seen off this summer, remembered as a frightening but ultimately brief ordeal. Or it may be
that it lurks into the autumn, whereupon it comes roaring back.
We don't know, and we hate that we don't know. Consequently a cottage industry has sprung up
around our uncertainty, hawking models, projections, expert opinions. These things have valid
scientific purposes, of course, but thrown down the rabbit hole of our popular discourse,
they've taken on a kind of hysterical clairvoyance, supposedly able to tell us what's coming
and how we should respond. With climate change, we grew accustomed to the idea that scientists
could see into the future. Now we're demanding they do the same with the coronavirus. That's
despite the fact that so far, none of these projections have demonstrated any greater
predictive ability than your average call to Miss Cleo.
Take the government's official death toll projections. Back in January, the White House was
largely complacent over the coronavirus, with President Trump comparing it to the seasonal flu
and his health secretary
saying that Americans need "not worry for their own safety." Then in late March, the
pendulum swung towards apocalypse. Actually, the White House said,
200,000 Americans could die. Two weeks later, the death toll projection fell
to a far rosier 60,000 , and the country breathed a sigh of relief ahead of Easter weekend.
Then the projections ticked upwards yet again. Today, IHME, the White House's principal
modeler, predicts that 147,000 Americans will be killed
by August 4.
Some of the issue here may be the choice of models. IHME has been
criticized by epidemiologists , as have the Imperial College modelers in Britain (who have
lately been distracted by, er, more
extracurricular activities ). But the bigger problem is best summed up in a quote
to Politico by the head of IHME, explaining why his organization's projections
were so wrong. "We had presumed, perhaps naively," he said, "that given the magnitude of the
epidemic, most states would stick to their social distancing until the end of May." In other
words, the models are premised on assumptions that can be scrambled by real-world events,
whether political decisions or acts of God or the caprices of the virus itself. They aren't
showing us the future so much as extrapolating off of a snapshot, one that can easily change.
Yet we treat them as practically mystic. "200,000 could die!!" scream the headlines, with
"could" ever the weasel word.
We don't just do this with the death toll. On the economy, too, we seem hopelessly confused.
Here's a smattering of headlines from the past two months: "Unemployment rate could exceed 20%
by June, top White House adviser says." "Economists see uneven jobs recovery, high U.S.
unemployment through 2021." "Top JPMorgan investment advisor: It will take '10 to 12 years' for
U.S. employment levels to return." "The coronavirus recession will be deeper and faster than
the financial crisis." "Economists say quick rebound from recession is unlikely." "Trump's
baseless claim that a recession would be deadlier than the coronavirus." "U.N. warns economic
downturn could kill hundreds of thousands of children in 2020."
Stare into this blurry puddle long enough and you might conclude that no one has any idea
what the hell they're talking about. Or you might fall back on your own biases, choosing to
believe stories that buttress your political beliefs and speak to your own personal
circumstances. Either way, this kind of confusion can have long-reaching effects. Consider, for
example, a new study that was released last week, which found that there could be 75,000
so-called deaths of despair -- meaning suicides and drug and alcohol overdoses -- as a
result of the coronavirus recession. It called to mind another
social science finding , one of the most consequential of the last decade: that life
expectancy among less educated, middle-aged, white Americans was declining, driven primarily by
those deaths of despair.
That claim, courtesy of researchers Anne Case and Angus Deaton , made
its way around the internet. It fed into the narrative of the populist right and Donald Trump.
It provided an empirical grounding for "American carnage." But wait: a less noticed study a
year later, which took Case's and Deaton's data and adjusted for age, found a more mixed
picture. According to research from
Columbia University , while middle-aged white women had indeed seen increased mortality
rates, middle-aged white men had reversed this trend back in 2005. And then came another study, in the
American Journal of Public Health , that challenged the very concept of "deaths of
despair," warning that "the gap between deaths of despair as a claim and deaths of despair as a
rigorously tested scientific concept is wide."
There is a Grand Canyon-sized gap between what we think we know and what we actually know.
How to navigate this chasm? Two maxims can help.
The first comes from Friedrich Hayek: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to
men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." Hayek was concerned
with what he called the "fatal conceit," which he defined as the belief "that man is able to
shape the world around him according to his wishes." We might add a corollary: that man is able
to anticipate the world around him according to his wishes. Because knowledge is
complex and dispersed, Hayek argued, no one can ever marshal enough of it to centrally plan an
economy. Likewise even a sophisticated model can't have enough data to foresee how a pandemic
will play out. There are simply too many variables, drawing on too many areas of life.
The second maxim comes from a very different source: John Dickinson, perhaps our most
conservative founding father. "Experience must be our only guide," Dickinson said. "Reason may
mislead us." Of course, by reason, he didn't mean vast computer algorithms struggling to track
contagion across seven continents; he was thinking of 18th-century rationalism, which he
contrasted with the more reliable yardstick of historical experience. While what seemed
philosophically sound in the abstract could be tainted by personal bias or disconnected from
real life, precedent was far more settled. How something had worked in the past was a good
indication of how it would work in the future.
Unfortunately we have very little precedent when it comes to the coronavirus, though the
Spanish flu can perhaps offer some clues. The 1918 influenza, like the current pandemic, began
in the spring, only to enter a second wave in the fall that killed more people than the first.
A third wave then began that winter and stretched into the summer of 1919. That's chilling, yet
there's good news too: the recession that followed was short and quickly blossomed into the
1920s, one of the most dizzying economic expansions in our history.
So top hats and flapper dresses all around? Who knows? It's called the novel coronavirus for
a reason. The awful truth is that we have very little idea how long this will go on and how it
will ultimately turn out. And the reason for that is that we know so very much less than we
think we do.
The Current Situation in the United States: May 2020
James K. Galbraith
Two weeks ago week the US death toll from Covid-19 exceeded that of US soldiers in
Vietnam, 1955-1974. On May 1 the one-day toll reached a new high, greater than that in New York
City on September 11, 2001. Meanwhile economic output has collapsed and over thirty million
Americans had filed unemployment claims as of April 30, 2020. On the public health front,
testing remains inadequate, contact tracing non-existent, treatment options appear stalled and
millions remain uninsured. The federal bailouts have worked well in one way only: to spur a
modest revival of stocks and to forestall massive defaults on bonds.
The failures of the public health system border on sabotage. Test kits were available
from the WHO in January; the US elected not to use them. The first production of tests from the
CDC was botched. Testing was deliberately limited as community transmission grew, so that the
virus escaped from early containment that might have been possible. Lockdowns and quarantines
came late, were poorly organized and weakly enforced. Supplies of PPE were not allocated to
hospitals and health care providers according to need; the Defense Production Act was not
deployed in timely and effective manner to ramp up home production; no effective federal system
to manage international medical supply chains exists to this day. While some firms have no
doubt done their best, reports of profiteering and scams are rampant.
The push to reopen the economy is a further mark of failure. As food supply workers
were not properly protected, unacceptable levels of sickness and workplace contamination have
occurred, notably in meat. Food banks are in crisis, while milk, eggs and other perishables are
wasted. State governments facing fiscal catastrophe press businesses to reopen on terms that
cannot be profitable, because capacity is constrained for health reasons. The openings are
calculated to force workers off of unemployment insurance, which can be revoked if they decline
to return to risky jobs. Many smaller businesses are deciding not to reopen; they will face
bankruptcy instead and disappear. Although evictions and foreclosures are technically deferred,
many landlords have ignored this and in any event rent, mortgages, utility bills and other
debts continue to accrue.
Models of the pandemic now openly predict infections rising further as lockdowns are
relaxed, to the point of testing the capacity of health care systems even in parts of the
country not yet severely affected. Whether this will happen or not is not yet clear; the public
may continue, as a general rule, to practice safe contact behavior, and if the transmission
rates hold below 1, as they presently are estimated to be in almost all of the American states , the pandemic may continue to
decline. But if the models are borne out, death rates will rise by many multiples of their
current values. These events are projected to lead to further lock-downs on a rolling basis,
until such time as a vaccine or therapy is available. There is no guarantee of
either.
Even if the pandemic is now contained the economy will not revert to "normal." The
United States is a premier producer of energy, aerospace, advanced information technologies and
financial services. It assembles many million automobiles, appliances and other consumer
durable goods every year. The oil sector has suffered a price collapse and borders now on mass
bankruptcy; when fracking wells are capped they will sand up and become very costly to reopen,
so the US energy-based economic expansion is over. Airplanes are lined up in parking spaces; no
new civilian passenger airliners will be needed indefinitely. Households who are either
unemployed or working from home (and therefore not commuting) or that face deferred rent and
mortgages will not soon be in the market for new cars; in any event the old ones will last
longer as they are being driven much less. As office buildings remain empty, new ones will not
be built. Similarly for retail stores, already driven to the wall by on-line ordering and
deliveries. The banking sector is on the hook for energy loans gone bad, and for household
debts, and for corporate loans that will be at risk once the bailout money runs low. The debts
built up during the pandemic will be defaulted in many cases, ruining credit for the households
affected. All of which foretells a long depression even under the best foreseeable public
health conditions. A cycle of infections and lock-downs will make all of this that much
worse.
There is an illusion about, that the recent prosperity can be revived by "reopening." But
many industries – aircraft, airlines, hotels, automobiles, appliances, commercial
construction, energy – will definitely shrink, whatever happens now and no matter how
much money they receive. The bailouts were a measure predicated on the idea that these
industries were facing just a temporary interruption. But it is difficult to see how
bankruptcies and liquidations can be avoided if there is no revival in the demand for product.
And large-scale production relies on interlinked supply-chains, so that if a single major
producer (for example one of the majors in the automotive sector) fails, there is a risk of
cascading liquidations (for example in auto parts), making operations difficult – perhaps
impossible – for the survivors. In these industries the supply chains and subcontractors
are much larger in the aggregate than the assembly operations of the final production firm.
Higher education, a large sector in America, faces a crisis of high costs, collapsing
enrollments and the actual alternative of cheap on-line instruction in many fields. This was
already in the works for demographic reasons, and is now being accelerated by the loss of
household wealth. Health care, ten times larger, also faces financial difficulties as millions
are losing their insurance and – for the moment anyway – as accidents, other
infectious diseases and such are down, depriving doctors and hospitals of reimbursements.
Service industries from restaurants to retailers cannot function profitably at one-quarter of
capacity; bars, nightclubs, and most sporting venues cannot reopen at all.
Federal decision-making has failed at every level. In the executive branch, it has
been at best a complex of incompetence, denial, and political motivation. At worst,
decisions were taken and are still being taken in full knowledge of the projected death rates
and potential for private profiteering, both in the medical sector and in the larger financial
economy. It is known that some private speculators made over three hundred billion dollars
shorting the stock market before the February collapse, and that some Members of Congress sold
their holdings based on information provided in intelligence briefings. Congressional action
has been slow, marred by politics, lobbies, regional rivalries, poor judgment and a
misdiagnosis of the economic issues, as Congress reached for legislative models used in past
business downturns, especially the crisis of 2007-2009, which had no quarantine or other public
health component.
The specific policies implemented were plagued by problems. To calculate payments
under the first CARES Act, the IRS had to use filings from tax year 2018, and also ran into
printing bottlenecks for paper checks that had to be mailed to those without direct deposit.
Unemployment insurance benefits were made relatively generous, and the state unemployment
insurance web-sites could not handle the crush, so they crashed, leaving many without the
ability to access the program. Instead of simple wage replacement (which would have protected
health insurance and union membership) the Small Business Administration issued rules that
appeared unusable for many firms, banks gave preference to favored clients, and in the first
round also the money soon ran out. In short, the effort to save the economy by pouring money
into it through conventional channels was inadequate, ill-considered, inefficient, and in some
respects corrupt. The best that may be said is that it was much better than doing nothing at
all.
As events progress, the usual pattern of property sales and purchases cannot proceed. So
property values will collapse, leaving millions of homeowners without equity; as this happens,
mass foreclosures and property seizures are inevitable under the present legal rules. Predatory
private investors will buy distressed assets at firesale prices and the American population
will revert, largely to renter status. For those with means, private tutors and doctors will
remain available; the others will manage as they can. Needless to say, depression, despair,
drug abuse and suicide will prevail.
Or maybe they won't . In the wake of the Great Financial Crisis, it was possible
– barely possible, but possible – to shift the blame from the bankers to the
victims, from those who built a massively fraudulent financial system to those who took out the
loans that they could not repay. But there was no viral element, no public health trigger, to
that crisis. This one is different. Every development described above is a consequence, direct
or indirect, of the coronavirus. Those who were laid off, and who went home, and who broke the
transmission of the disease, did their part, just as health-care professionals and grocery
clerks did theirs. Their legal case for relief remains weak. But the moral case is strong and
the economic case is beyond dispute. Even the incumbent Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, a
foreclosure-predator of the first water after 2008, has stated that
the economic crisis "is no fault of American business, it is no fault of American workers, it
is the fault of a virus." This is true but it does not mean that things will return to the past
if the virus can be made to go away.
To move forward, first of all, debts incurred before and during the pandemic will
have to be written down. The energy sector and transport sectors will have to be rebuilt, based
far more on renewables and sources other than oil. A large share of basic industries –
especially in the health sector – will have to be repatriated so that basic sufficiency
exists in this country. Millions of people will be needed to monitor and support public health;
jobs for them must be organized and funded by the government. State and local governments will
have to be federally-funded, in substantial part, to provide basic public services. New and
sustainable housing must be built, in new community structures. High speed broadband must be
provided to all. A new financing model – cooperative, with public support – will be
required to re-establish small businesses. Local, decentralized cultural and sporting venues
will have to replace mass-based experiences; these too will require cooperative structures and
public support. In short, the only way out, remotely acceptable to the population at large,
will require a comprehensive restructuring of the economy on a cooperative foundation, with the
government stepping up to guaranteed funding, employment, and public investments.
Disaster capitalism is being tried, and the worst case is now the likely case. But there is
a scale beyond which disaster capitalism cannot go. At a certain point, the carnage becomes too
great to neglect, impossible to avoid and lethal to overlook. At a certain point, ordinary
people will stand up and refuse to be bullied any more. That point has not quite arrived; we
are still in the mind-set of "getting back to normal," even as the pandemic continues. The
contradiction between normality and public health is on people's minds; the impossibility of
returning to the previous abnormal-normal has not yet settled in. It will, in due course. At
that point, the question of alternatives will have to be faced.
As noted above, the Establishment view on foreign and national security policy was based on
the principle that there must always be a united front when dealing with situations that are
being closely watched by foreigners. If a cabinet secretary or the president says something
relating to foreign or military affairs it should be the unified view of both the
administration and the loyal opposition. Unfortunately, with President Donald Trump that
unanimity has broken down, largely because the chief executive either refuses to or is
incapable of staying on script. The most recent false step involved the origin of the corona
virus, with the intelligence community stating that there was no evidence that the virus was
"man made or genetically modified" in a lab followed by the president several hours later
contradicting that view asserting that he had a "high degree of confidence" that the
coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China based on secret information
that he could not reveal .
There has also been reports that the Trump White House has in fact been pushing the
intelligence community (IC) to
"hunt for evidence" linking the virus to the Wuhan laboratory, suggesting that the entire
China gambit is mostly political, to have a scapegoat available in case the troubled handling
of the virus in the United States becomes a fiasco and therefore a political liability. This
pressure apparently prompted an additional statement from the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence saying: "The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information
and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals
or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has
claimed without providing any details that there is "overwhelming evidence" that
coronavirus came out of the Wuhan laboratory, is reportedly leading the push to demonize China.
He and other administration officials have expressed their frustration over the C.I.A.'s
apparent inability to come up with a definitive explanation for the outbreak's origin. C.I.A.
analysts have reportedly responded that there is no evidence to support any one theory with
"high confidence" and they are afraid that any equivocating response will immediately be
politicized. Some analysts noted that their close monitoring of communications regarding the
Wuhan lab suggest that the Chinese government itself does not regard the lab as a source of the
contagion.
To be sure, any intelligence community document directly blaming the Chinese government for
the outbreak would have a devastating impact on bilateral relations for years to come, a
consequence that Donald Trump apparently does not appreciate. And previous interactions
initiated by Trump administration officials suggest that Washington might use its preferred
weapon sanctions in an attempt to pressure other nations to also hold China accountable, which
would multiply the damage.
Given what is at stake in light of the White House pressure to prove what might very well be
unprovable, many in the intelligence community who actually value what they do and how they do
it are noticeably annoyed and some have even looked for allies in Congress, where they have
found support from the Pentagon over Administration decision making that is both Quixotic and
heavily politicized.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith of Washington
has responded to the concerns expressed to him by both the military and intelligence
communities, admitting that he is " worried about a culture developing" where many senior
officials are now making decision not on the merits of the case but rather out of fear that
they will upset the president if they do not choose correctly.
While the intelligence agencies are concerned over the fabrication of a false consensus over
the coronavirus, similar to what occurred regarding Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of
mass destruction in 2002-3, the Defense Department is more concerned that fundamental
mechanisms that have been in place since the Second World War are now under attack, including
how the military maintains discipline and punishes officers and enlisted men who have deviated
from established policies.
A Yale University epidemiologist is calling into question the legality of US President
Donald Trump and his administration's response to the COVID-19 novel coronavirus, appearing to
suggest that federal government officials could be tried under international law. Hours before
Trump
took to Twitter to announce the Coronavirus Task Force would "continue on indefinitely,"
Gregg
Gonsalves , an assistant professor of epidemiology of microbial diseases at the Yale School
of Public Health, posed a series of questions to fellow netizens on the social media site
regarding Washington's handling of COVID-19.
How many people will die this summer, before Election Day? What proportion of the deaths
will be among African-Americans, Latinos, other people of color? This is getting awfully
close to genocide by default. What else do you call mass death by public policy? #COVID19
#coronavirus
As of this article's publication, the US has tested over 7.5 million individuals for the
novel coronavirus, according to Johns Hopkins University . Data provided by the
university details that the country has confirmed 1.2 million cases of the novel coronavirus
and suffered over 71,400 associated deaths. At least 189,791 recoveries from COVID-19 have been
observed in the US.
Gonsalves' emphasis on the COVID-19 deaths of Black Americans, Latinos and other people of
color in the US stems from the fact that there has been a disproportionate amount of novel
coronavirus deaths in the Black community.
"Social conditions, structural racism, and other factors elevate risk for COVID-19 diagnoses
and deaths in black communities," wrote a team of epidemiologists and clinicians in a new study
analyzing novel coronavirus cases and death on a county level, as reported by CNN. The
scientists found that counties where Black residents made up more than 13% of the population -
about the percentage of the total US population that is Black - suffered 52% of COVID-19
diagnoses and 58% of associated deaths in the country.
"Structural factors including health care access, density of households, unemployment,
pervasive discrimination and others drive these disparities, not intrinsic characteristics of
black communities or individual-level factors," noted the researchers.
It's worth noting that the findings are preliminary, as the study still needs to go through
the peer review process.
"So, what does it mean to let thousands die by negligence, omission, failure to act, in a
legal sense under international law?" asked Gonsalves in another tweet
Wednesday morning .
The conduct of Trump and his administration has been called into question over the past
several weeks after reports revealed that the president and federal officials were briefed on
the novel coronavirus, and its potential threat to the US, several weeks prior to the
declaration of a national emergency on March 13.
Recently, Dr. Rick Bright, the former director of the US Biomedical Advanced Research and
Development Authority,
said that he alerted Department of Health and Human Services officials in January about
the US' unpreparedness for a possible COVID-19 outbreak. Bright said that he was met with
"indifference which then developed into hostility" from the administration and, in his
opinion, was the reason for his demotion within the agency.
While Trump is pushing for more Americans to return to their workplaces and restart the US
economy - which some believe could lead to a second wave of infections - Gonsalves wondered if
there could be some kind of intervention or charges brought against the federal government on
an international level.
"And I am being serious here: what is happening in the US is purposeful, considered
negligence, omission, failure to act by our leaders. Can they be held responsible under
international law?" he asked .
RADDATZ: Do you believe it was manmade or genetically modified?
POMPEO: Look, the best experts so far seem to think it was manmade. I have no reason to
disbelieve that at this point.
RADDATZ: Your -- your Office of the DNI says the consensus, the scientific consensus
was not manmade or genetically modified.
POMPEO: That's right. I -- I -- I agree with that. Yes. I've -- I've seen their analysis.
I've seen the summary that you saw that was released publicly. I have no reason to doubt
that that is accurate at this point.
To summarize: Pompeo does not doubt that the virus has been genetically modified, but he
also does not doubt that is has not been genetically modified.
Could there be a more obvious demonstration that the man is FULL OF SHIT??
Those incompetent neo-confederates leading america into oblivion will jumble strategic
defeats with winning. So much for accountability, hard work and personal responsability...
Seems they can't compete fairly without superior military variable of adjustment and threat
of violence against adversaries. Orange springs eternal and their great white hope has now
adopted a paralizing rhetoric of victimization - republican lawmakers follow suit and are
going so far as invoking a western bid for monetary reparations from Chinese depredations. #
the art of winnig for maggots, derp.
"... The president has ramped up attacks on China in recent weeks, insisting it concealed information about the coronavirus in the early stages of the outbreak and has all but blamed the country for the health crisis. Asked whether he would use tariffs or debt write-offs to penalize Beijing, Trump refused to offer much detail, saying only that "we're looking for what happened" and how to respond to the alleged "cover-up." ..."
US President Donald Trump believes China "will do anything they can" to make him lose his re-election bid, pointing to Beijing's
handling of the coronavirus outbreak that has killed over 60,000 Americans already. Taking aim at Beijing, Trump told Reuters
in an interview on Wednesday that the country would prefer to see his Democratic rival Joe Biden take the Oval Office in November,
stating it would pull out all the stops to see him win – though the former VP would first need to secure his party's nomination.
China will do anything they can to have me lose this race.
The president has ramped up attacks on China in recent weeks, insisting it concealed information about the coronavirus in
the early stages of the outbreak and has all but blamed the country for the health crisis. Asked whether he would use tariffs or
debt write-offs to penalize Beijing, Trump refused to offer much detail, saying only that "we're looking for what happened" and how
to respond to the alleged "cover-up."
There are many things I can do.
Beijing has maintained that it tackled the pandemic appropriately and that it shared information about the virus with the international
community as soon as it was available. Chinese officials have also hit back at the US accusations, suggesting Washington's handling
of Covid-19 has been slow and ineffective, while warning against politicizing the global crisis.
...There's no New York Times before Covid and after Covid and intelligence was crooked before
it was straight on no WMDs in Iraq before Zionists gave Bush the fake intelligence he wanted.
Intelligence will be crooked and sometimes right depending, but more often it's a trained
pitbull. None of that matters.
I have long disliked the New York Times as a perfect example of Neo-liberal trash
propaganda, and I really disagreed with b's whitewash of Trump until recently when his
interpretation of Trump has become less clouded by his protect Russia bias and more
cognizant of the avalanche of proof that Trump is a Zionist fascist in service of 1% power
and specifically chosen for his unflinching loyalty to the peak of the corruption
pyramid.
Now, what I mean by this is that when your loyalty is to the unbiased truth, you don't and
shouldn't care from whence it emerges cause the truth can emerge from a sewer dripping in
filth as easily as it can fall out of the sky pure like driven snow. The vehicle means one
iota to me; I only care about the truth, unlike some of you here who want to shoot the
messenger cause right now the messenger can't help giving you the facts for whatever reason,
and you can't handle the truth.
Wise up! And learn to recognize the truth when you see it even if it's covered in what you
consider shet.
Now on the j'accuse Chine , Trump strategy. Very little of the virus travelled from
China to the U.S. and what did land in the U.S. from China was mostly contained. The worst
spread of infection came from Europe, but Trump being the asshole that he is got caught in
his xenophobic trap, immediately shutting down flights from China but allowing hundreds of
thousands of carriers from Europe to disembark for weeks. So now to cover that huge blunder
that emanated from his racist skewed judgment, he's spewing fake intelligence and hate
propaganda against China to cover his butt and salvage his poll numbers.
The truth is that small and medium-sized farms are failing under the weight of his tariff
blowback and now under Covid. He's starting to bleed support in rural areas so he needs to
play the racist blame card to inflame patriotic loyalty to rally around him.
I hope he also gets everything he deserves. A spectacular downfall might suffice.
That WHO basically fucked up because of Western pressure more than because of China is
obvious. Just look at the most recent idiocy they promoted: masks are useless. China would
never claim that - both because they rely massively on them and because they produce and sell
a lot of them. On the other hand, Western governments who were asleep at the wheel and never
bothered to store or produce facemasks were desperately trying to convince their sheep flock,
I mean, people, that they were all good, managed the crisis as best as anyone could, and that
there wasn't any shortage of masks because these weren't useful to begin with.
Case closed.
And for the eternal record of universal history: China's dictatorship obviously cared more
about its people than self-claimed democratic governments. Let that sink in for a minute.
There's a lot of trash science out there re:Covid- it was founded on trash science.
Maybe next post you could go into the trash science of the fraudulent tests
themselves.
In the mean time this is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what is
going on- one of the most concise pieces on the subject to date:
The WHO makes gratuitous use of appellations such as "world" and "health" but is
actually a semi-private entity lavishly financed by Bill Gates and Big Pharma, which is owned
by a handful of highly inbred oligarchic entities that include Vanguard, BlackRock, Capital
Group, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Northern Trust and State Street, which in turn own each
other in various convoluted ways.
WHO's main function is to scare people into getting vaccinated and accepting expensive
drug regimens (barely half of which do any good at all), thus funneling resources toward Big
Pharma.
The World Health Organization establishes thresholds to determine whether to declare an
influenza epidemic that range between 2.5% and 5%. The novel coronavirus misses the mark by a
thousand-fold, yet the WHO has declared it to be the cause of a global pandemic.
If this seems like an extreme overreaction, that is because this is an extreme
overreaction.
Some conspiratorially-minded people may surmise that this is a conspiracy, but it
isn't. It is yet another blatant attempt to confiscate a chunk of the world's wealth by
requiring it to buy something worthless, just like this same set of medical/financial
interests did with the relatively worthless Tamiflu antiviral medication during the H1N1
swine flu pandemic of 2009-10 which caused a mere 18,036 deaths worldwide. This is a specific
group pursuing its own group interests.
Last month, the state paid Yaron Oren-Pines $47,656 per ventilator for 1,450
ventilators, three times the normal asking price,.....
...Oren-Pines has no known capability or expertise in making ventilators. According
to BuzzFeed, his social media shows expressions of support for Trump since at least
2015.
He has not provided the ventilators, and New York state is attempting to recover the
money, BuzzFeed reported. Oren-Pines would not comment to the online news site.
An unnamed official for the New York state government said the recommendation to deal
with Oren-Pines came directly from the White House coronavirus task force. A spokeswoman
for Vice President Mike Pence, who heads the task force, denied any involvement in making
the recommendation.
The carpetbaggers are always in the lead if not the instigators. Perhaps he was on the
last flight home.
"The U.S. has had sclerotic political leadership during this crisis. The U.S. is being
offered the "choice" between Trump, 73, and Biden, 77. Its other major political players are
Pelosi, 80, and McConnell, 78 .
Trump of course bears most of the blame for the Covid-19 Crisis.
But the Dems and liberal media also share a lot. Trump dithered for many crucial weeks after
China's CCP very belatedly shut down Wuhan on January 23, many weeks after the virus emerged
What were the Dems and liberal media doing during those crucial weeks? From December 18 to
February 5 they culminated three years of wasting the nation's time trying to impeach Trump for
Russia- and Ukraine-gate, as the virus picked up steam.
The Dems and liberal media held "debates" and primaries through March 17 in which Covid-19
was barely mentioned except in the context of Sanders' Medicare for All, focusing instead on
such issues as Bloomberg's NDA's (Biden's opponents are now using a similar #MeToo attack)."
• "The duty of an opposition party is to oppose."
Gleaming new tent hospitals sit empty on two suburban New York college campuses, never
having treated a single coronavirus patient. Convention centers that were turned into temporary
hospitals in other cities went mostly unused. And a
Navy hospital ship that offered help in Manhattan is soon to depart. When virus infections
slowed down or fell short of worst-case predictions, the globe was left dotted with dozens of
barely used or unused field hospitals. [ Too bad Cuomo didn't send COVID-19 patients from the
nursing homes to these ships for treatment... ]
"... The person trying to tell the truth is forced to defend, 'Communist China' (Tom Cotton thinks that is one word), Russia, or Iran and to the U.S. public this is toxic. ..."
"... Someday it just won't matter anymore. We will have deceived ourselves for so long that we have squandered so much of our power that no one will pay attention to us. ..."
"... Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed ..."
"... Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed ..."
For brevity, I always post that our IC (Intelligence Community) is masterful in shaping
U.S. public opinion and causing problems for targeted countries but terrible in collecting
and analyzing Intel that would benefit the U.S. The truth of course, is more complicated.
There is a remnant that is doing their jobs properly but is shut out from higher level
offices. But I cannot give long disclaimers at the start of my posts, (I'm not talking about
the men and women ...) where 50 words later I finally start to make my point. It's boring,
sounds insincere, and defensive.
This is yet another effective defense mechanism that protects the troublemakers in our IC
bureaucracy.
1. The person trying to tell the truth is forced to defend, 'Communist China' (Tom Cotton
thinks that is one word), Russia, or Iran and to the U.S. public this is toxic.
2. These rogues get to use the remaining good people as human shields.
3. They know their customers, it gives the politicians a way to turn themselves into
wartime leaders rather than having to answer for their shortcomings.
Someday it just won't matter anymore. We will have deceived ourselves for so long that
we have squandered so much of our power that no one will pay attention to us.
/div> Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even
more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed . The
American public are easily enough fooled being constantly fed a racist diet, especially
Sinophobia, Russophopia and Iranophobia and the drumbeats for war, financial or military, are
easily banged to raise the public's blood pressure....but what about the consequences? America
can win neither, even with he assistance of a few vassal states. What happens if, and when,
normal service is resumed? If they managed to succeed with any of their hair-brained ideas,
what are the consequences for American companies in China, rare earth minerals, the IT
industries etc etc. Guard your words wisely for they can never be retracted.
Posted by: Séamus Ó Néill , May 1 2020 13:46 utc |
13
Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so
the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed . The American
public are easily enough fooled being constantly fed a racist diet, especially Sinophobia,
Russophopia and Iranophobia and the drumbeats for war, financial or military, are easily
banged to raise the public's blood pressure....but what about the consequences? America can
win neither, even with he assistance of a few vassal states. What happens if, and when,
normal service is resumed? If they managed to succeed with any of their hair-brained ideas,
what are the consequences for American companies in China, rare earth minerals, the IT
industries etc etc. Guard your words wisely for they can never be retracted.
Posted by: Séamus Ó Néill | May 1 2020 13:46 utc |
13
I think there is very good intelligence in the US. so much data is collected and there are
many analysts to go over the data and present their forecasts. The World Factbook is an
example of collected intelligence made available to the unwashed masses.
what you are thinking is that this information should be used to your benefit. that is
where it goes wrong. the big players are able to access and exploit that mass of data and use
it to their benefit.
Billmon used to say that this is a feature, not a bug.
"Not precluded" are also a Fort Detrick origin and contagion taken to Wuhan by the US
military, staying at a hotel where most of the first cluster of patients was identified. So
why wouldn't you always mention both in the same breath?
First hollywood movie I am aware of that deals with pandemics and has Fort Detrick front and
center was "Outbreak" 1995. In this film, the "Expert" played by D. Huffman uncovers a plot
by a rogue 2 star general sitting on the serum from another outbreak years ago, and how he
witheld this information and the serum to "protect their bioweapon". There is also a very
overt background sub-plot about Dod and CDC being at odds.
DoD is not listed in the credits for Outbreak. Many of the scenes are supposed to take
place in CDC and Fort Detrick.
--
Last hollywood movie was "Contagion" 2011. In this film, which pretty much anticipates
Covid-19 madness but with an actually scary virus, the "Expert" in charge tells the DHS man
that "Nature has already weaponized them!".
So this lie about the little bitty part "function gain" man-made mutations being the
critical bit for "weaponizing" viruses is turned on its head. It was "Nature" after all. A
wet market, you know.
Contagion does list DoD in its credits. Vincent C. Oglivie as US DoD Liason and Project
Officer.
Just some 'fun' trivia for us to while away our lives. Remember that consipirational
thought is abberational thought. Have a shot of Victory Gin and relex!
Just as i said many times, it is Trump driving US hostility and escalation in the world, and
not only those around him. He is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years.
A racist white man goes crazy the moment he understands he does not have the "biggest
dick" anymore, and is humiliated due to that, since this wasn't supposed to happen to the
people who ruled the world for 500 years.
What will happen is that american white male right wingers will start going crazy. Lashing
out in hatred against the world, after understanding they are no longer "number 1", and that
their fate will not be pretty.
You should expect US right wingers to go crazy as the US further declines. These people
thought they would rule the world. Instead they started to decline. This wasn't supposed to
happen to such superior people.
US elite will simply go crazy as the "best country in the world" loses its power.
Expect anglo craziness, outbursts of hate and hysteria. The US elite will become a mental
institution. If not for nukes, they would have started a world war already.
The absence of sufficient state controls in a democracy enables the wealthy class to
manipulate the economy, the press and elected representatives for its own gain. A widening gulf
between poverty and affluence develops, gradually dragging the working class to ruin
Notable quotes:
"... Our economy is based on the wet dream of sycophants like Mnuchin who barely escaped prison for his games in the wake of devastation of the subprime loan disaster on 2008, and neoliberals who are much better at playing him then the opposite. So he's a puppet for Wall Street AND a closet neocon. Would the demonstrably senile Biden be any better? Not a chance, so once again the majority of Americans are left with a sham election whereby two flavors of the same shit are what's being fed to us. ..."
@Priss
Factor Assuming he's even motivated by a desire to make America a better Constitutional
Republic, Trump is a salesman first and foremost. As a former pharmaceutical rep I am well
aware that most salesmen are suckers for most sales pitches as an intrinsic part of their
personalities.
So as I watch Trump being manipulated continuously by a variety of slick and confident
grifters inhabiting the world stage with their multitude of transparent agendas I can only
go, "that figures". I mean, he's basically just a more alpha version of GW Bush, so the fact
that we haven't gone full gonzo yet on another nation is something of a miracle. Instead he's
waging war by collapsing economies he views as competitors OR those of countries he wants to
invade to steal natural resources from. As for the health of America, we're fucked.
Our economy is based on the wet dream of sycophants like Mnuchin who barely escaped
prison for his games in the wake of devastation of the subprime loan disaster on 2008, and
neoliberals who are much better at playing him then the opposite. So he's a puppet for Wall
Street AND a closet neocon. Would the demonstrably senile Biden be any better? Not a chance,
so once again the majority of Americans are left with a sham election whereby two flavors of
the same shit are what's being fed to us.
Until the American people demand electoral reform – you ain't going nowhere.
You need another party and you need to vote for it.
Stuff the neo lib or neo lib or neo lib – of the existing choice.
You have a two headed hydra – in reality a one party state.
Financed and controlled by puppet masters.
The democracy in the US is a total sham
A fraud and farce.
And you need fair voting.
Used by most democracies – PR – Proportional Representation.
Where votes mean seats.
A Ron Paul party would be a dream.
But until America gets off its fat bots and seriously acts to become a democratic state
– you are getting what you continue to vote for.
Greed, corruption and elite rule – bought and paid for in the House and Senate
down.
Nothing but a puppet, pawn and tax collector for another foreign power.
And you dare to mass murder and bomb in the name of 'regime change' and democracy to create
your vile rule of law across the planet
Gross, an abomination – a facist state.
Evil intent and premeditation are perfectly compatible with bad planning and gross
incompetence.
Look at every US war of aggression: It fails utterly at every affirmative goal, but so far
always accomplishes the purely negative goals of mass murder, gross physical destruction and
generating failed states. Same for disaster responses like with Katrina: They couldn't save
any lives or help poor people rebuild, but they could complete the destruction of social
infrastructure which the hurricane hadn't finished off.
That's the US, domestically and around the world. And people really think any kind
of intensive response to an epidemic would have any other kind of outcome?
... it wouldn't surprise me if they deployed this virus in China without assuming, or
caring about, blowback in the US.
karlof1 has speculated along the same lines weeks ago.
My understanding of karlof1's argument is as follows: China turned the "weapon" (assuming
it was a deliberate attack) back on USA by revealing the virus instead of keeping the
outbreak quiet. The result has been the destabilizing of US society because USA leadership
had never planned to respond to the virus in any way that is appropriate to a new virus.
The people need science. The teaching is a legacy of pathologist Rudolph Virchow who was at
the barricades in Berlin in 1848. A journal entry in that year of revolutions reads, "
Medicine is a social
science , and politics nothing but medicine on a grand scale." The pioneering Virchow first
pronounced upon the biological importance of cells in health and disease. He was the "
chief founder of
modern scientific medicine." (William H. Welch, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine 1902),
Virchow inspires today's imperative that the entitled classes not abandon science in the
face of danger nor twist science to fit proprietary uses. This is the Virchow whose study of a
typhus outbreak in Upper Silesia convinced him that class-based oppression – poverty and
lack of education – was responsible for the epidemic, the Virchow who helped form the
German
Radical Party in 1884 and served in the Prussian and German parliaments.
Ask immunologist and virologist Rick Bright about science serving the people. That expert in
preventing viral disease, particularly influenza, on April 21 was removed from his position in
the Department of Health and Human Services. Bright was in charge of the Biomedical Advanced
Research and Development Authority and of efforts to develop an anti-COVID 19 vaccine. He had
63 scientific
articles to his credit.
Bright told the press that, "I believe
this transfer was in response to my insistence that the government invest the billions of
dollars allocated by Congress to address the COVID-19 pandemic into safe and scientifically
vetted solutions, and not in drugs, vaccines and other technologies that lack scientific merit.
I am speaking out because to combat this deadly virus, science -- not politics or cronyism --
has to lead the way."
He added that, "contrary to misguided directives, I limited the broad use of chloroquine and
hydroxychloroquine, promoted by the Administration as a panacea, but which clearly lack
scientific merit."
Science has been a bit player in the U.S. government's confrontation with the pandemic.
President Trump's anti-science attitudes are far from the whole story, although his cut-off of
U.S. funding for the World Health Organization was as dangerous as it was symbolic.
That government failed to take steps that would have allowed scientific inquiry during the
early stages of the pandemic Early case-finding and tracking of contacts did not take place.
Investigators lacked the raw material that might have allowed them to define the contours of an
evolving epidemic, its special characteristics.
The fact of delay was clear on April 21 when a California medical examiner announced that
COVID 19 had accounted for one death on February 6 and another on February 17. Neither victim
had traveled outside the United States. The onset of their infections was presumably in
mid-January. All along, authorities had regarded a Washington-state patient who tested positive
on February 26 as the first U.S. victim of community-acquired infection. Yet CDC director
Robert Redfield, testifying before a congressional committee on March 11, revealed that some
patients assumed to have died from influenza did die from COVID 19 infection.
Also, the administration's China-bashing and even conspiracy theories about the origins of
the pandemic testify to its dismissal of useful scientist research, particularly the findings
of scientists throughout the world who know about the beginnings of the pandemic, in China.
British and German scientists " reconstructed the early
'evolutionary paths' of COVID-19 in humans." A Cambridge University team "mapped some of the
original spread of the new coronavirus through its mutations, which creates different viral
lineages." Virus genomes were studied " from across the world between 24 December 2019 and 4
March 2020."
The researchers categorized three types of COVID 19. The original Wuhan virus was type A;
its mutated versions showed up in the United States and Australia. Type B, predominating in
Wuhan, stayed put in East Asia. Type C appeared only in Europe, Singapore, Hong Kong and South
Korea. The researchers "traced established infection routes: the mutations and viral lineages
joined the dots between known cases." Such information about the virus's biologic behavior
might have enabled public health officials to identify at-risk populations within the United
States and abroad.
Lead author Peter Forster suggested to a reporter that in Wuhan "the first infection and
spread among humans of COVID-19 occurred between mid-September and early December." His
disclosure has implications for U.S. military athletes participating in the "World Military
Games" in Wuhan in late October. They were among 9308 military
athletes on hand from 100 countries. The athletes might have carried the virus with them on
their return to the various nations.
Zoologist Peter Daszak, president of the New York – based EcoHealth Alliance, does
research in China on inter-species sharing of viruses. He pointed out in 2013 that,
"Coronaviruses evolve very rapidly [and] are exquisitely evolved to jump from one species to
another." At the time, he was reflecting on the SARS
coronavirus epidemic of 10 years earlier.
He offered a suggestion that, if acted upon, might have prevented the COVID 19 pandemic. The
cost, Daszak estimated, would have been "about $1.5bn to discover all the viruses in mammals. I
think that would be a great investment because once you have done it, you can develop vaccines
and get ready with test kits to find the first stage of emergence and stop it."
This story of the U.S. government's abuse of science ends with lessons learned. They are:
(1) science must exist for the benefit of all people and not be left to the mercies of the rich
and powerful, (2) a government restricting and disrespecting scientists, like Dr. Bright, is
dangerous to the people, and (3) a capability to plan is of the essence to a state that would
assure the safety and flourishing of all its people. These basic standards, it seems here, will
be identifying features for those societies that do emerge relatively intact from the pandemic.
The odds favor the socialist ones.
Our leaders were so preoccupied with remaking the world they failed to see that our country
was falling apart around them. Has the time come to bury the conceit of American
exceptionalism? In an article for the American edition of The Spectator , Quincy
Institute President Andrew Bacevich concludes just that:
The coronavirus pandemic is a curse. It should also serve as an opportunity, Americans at
long last realizing that they are not God's agents. Out of suffering and loss, humility and
self-awareness might emerge. We can only hope.
The heart of the American exceptionalism in question is American hubris. It is based on the
assumption that we are better than the rest of the world, and that this superiority both
entitles and obligates us to take on an outsized role in the world.
In our current foreign policy debates, the phrase "American exceptionalism" has served as a
shorthand for justifying and celebrating U.S. dominance, and when necessary it has served as a
blanket excuse for U.S. wrongdoing. Seongjong Song defined it in an 2015 article
for The Korean Journal of International Studies this way: "American exceptionalism is the
belief that the US is "qualitatively different" from all other nations." In practice, that has
meant that the U.S. does not consider itself to be bound by the same rules that apply to other
states, and it reserves the right to interfere whenever and wherever it wishes.
American exceptionalism has been used in our political debates as an ideological purity test
to determine whether certain political leaders are sufficiently supportive of an activist and
interventionist foreign policy. The main purpose of invoking American exceptionalism in foreign
policy debate has been to denigrate less hawkish policy views as unpatriotic and beyond the
pale. The phrase was often used as a partisan cudgel in the previous decade as the Obama
administration's critics tried to cast doubt on the former president's acceptance of this idea,
but in the years since then it has become a rallying point for devotees of U.S. primacy
regardless of party. There was an explosion in the use of the phrase in just the first few
years of the 2010s compared with the previous decades. Song cited a study that showed this
massive increase:
Exceptionalist discourse is on the rise in American politics. Terrence McCoy (2012) found
that the term "American exceptionalism" appeared in US publications 457 times between 1980
and 2000, climbing to 2,558 times in the 2000s and 4,172 times in 2010-12.
The more that U.S. policies have proved "American exceptionalism" to be a pernicious myth at
odds with reality, the more we have heard the phrase used to defend those policies. Republican
hawks began the decade by accusing Obama of not believing in this "exceptionalism," and some
Democratic hawks closed it out by
"reclaiming" the idea on behalf of their own discredited foreign policy vision. There may
be differences in emphasis between the two camps, but there is a consensus that the U.S. has
special rights and privileges that other nations cannot have. That has translated into waging
unnecessary wars, assuming excessive overseas burdens, and trampling on the rights of other
states, and all the while congratulating ourselves on how virtuous we are for doing all of
it.
The contemporary version of American exceptionalism is tied up inextricably with the belief
that the U.S. is the "indispensable nation." According to this view, without U.S. "leadership"
other countries will be unable or unwilling to respond to major international problems and
threats. We have seen just how divorced from reality that belief is in just the last few
months. There has been no meaningful U.S. leadership in response to the pandemic, but for the
most part our allies have managed on their own fairly well. In the absence of U.S.
"leadership," many other countries have demonstrated that they haven't really needed the U.S.
Our "indispensability" is a story that we like to tell ourselves, but it isn't true. Not only
are we no longer indispensable, but as Micah Zenko pointed out
many years ago, we never were.
It was 22 years ago when then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright publicly declared the
United States to be the "indispensable nation": "If we have to use force, it is because we are
America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries
into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."
In a recent
interview with The New York T imes, Albright sounded much less sure of her old
position: "There's nothing in the definition of indispensable that says "alone." It means that
the United States needs to be engaged with its partners. And people's backgrounds make a
difference." Albright's original statement was an aggressive assertion that America was both
extraordinarily powerful and unusually farsighted, and that legitimized the frequent U.S.
recourse to using force.
After two decades of calamitous failures that have highlighted our weaknesses and
foolishness, even she can't muster up the old enthusiasm that she once had. No one could look
back at the last 20 years of U.S. foreign policy and still honestly say that "we see further"
into the future than others. Not only are we no better than other countries at anticipating and
preparing for future dangers, but judging from the country's lack of preparedness for a
pandemic we are actually far behind many of the countries that we have presumed to "lead." It
is impossible to square our official self-congratulatory rhetoric with the reality of a
government that is incapable of protecting its citizens from disaster.
The poor U.S. response to the pandemic has not only exposed many of the country's serious
faults, but it has also caused a crisis of faith in the prevailing mythology that American
political leaders and pundits have been promoting for decades. This found expression most
recently in a rather odd
article in The New York Times last week. The framing of the story makes it into a
lament for a collapsing ideology:
The pandemic sweeping the globe has done more than take lives and livelihoods from New
Delhi to New York. It is shaking fundamental assumptions about American exceptionalism -- the
special role the United States played for decades after World War II as the reach of its
values and power made it a global leader and example to the world.
The curious thing about this description is that it takes for granted that "fundamental
assumptions about American exceptionalism" haven't been thoroughly shaken long before now. The
"special role" mentioned here was never going to last forever, and in some respects it was more
imaginary than real. It was a period in our history that we should seek to understand and learn
from, but we also need to recognize that it was transitory and already ended some time ago.
If American exceptionalism is now "on trial," as another recent article put it
, it is because it offered up a pleasing but false picture of how we relate to the rest of the
world. Over the last two decades, we have seen that picture diverge more and more from real
life. The false picture gives political leaders an excuse to take reckless and disastrous
actions as long as they can spin them as being expressions of "who we are" as a country. At the
same time, they remain blind to the country's real vulnerabilities. It is a measure of how
powerful the illusion of American exceptionalism is that it still has such a hold on so many
people's minds even now, but it has not been a harmless illusion.
While our leaders have been patting themselves on the back for the enlightened "leadership"
that they imagine they are providing to the world, they have neglected the country's urgent
needs and allowed many parts of our system to fall into disrepair and ruin. They have also
visited enormous destruction on many other countries in the name of "helping" them. The same
hubris that has warped foreign policy decisions over the decades has encouraged a dangerous
complacency about the problems in our own country. We can't let that continue. Our leaders were
so preoccupied with trying to remake other parts of the world that they failed to see that our
country was falling apart all around them.
American exceptionalism has been the story that our leaders told us to excuse their neglect
of America. It is a flattering story, but ultimately it is a vain one that distracts us from
protecting our own country and people. We would do well if we put away this boastful fantasy
and learned how to live like a normal nation.
But what happened to the Trump who was going to drain the swamp? He filled it with more
sewage.
He murdered Soleimani and interferes in Venezuelan politics in ways that Russia has been
accused(falsely) of interfering in US politics.
@Priss
Factor I suspect the true backbreaker when it comes to disillusioning for me was seeing
how thoroughly Trump was disconnected from the levers of power except for those few cases
when he'd been surrounded by war lobby shills.
Whatever welcome change Trump could have brought has been completely negated by the fact
everyone he hired or could have hired is too stuck in the status quo to welcome change. Even
the people he though could have been the "rebels" on his side lead him down that path of
seeing Iranian ballistic missiles hitting US troop positions in Iraq.
The only thing that might have worked would have been firing everyone he could during the
first 7 days and filling as many posts as he could with clean cut (as opposed to neck
bearded) alt-right 20-somethings.
I voted for Trump, but Trump still wasn't enough to keep me in the US.
These lockdowns have ended life as we know it, no matter which position you take. I do think
it has been a mistake not to quarantine nursing homes, ltc facilities, hospitals, etc..
Including the docs, nurses, workers. Those are the vectors & 50% of covid deaths could
have been prevented, esp in NY, like that. At year-end, we can look at all-cause mortalities
trends, see how this year stacks up. I hope these measures make sense given the extreme
poverty, violence, death they will cause. There will be no permanent vaccine, they've been
trying w/Coronav's for a long time. This thing is a fact of life going forward. It will
mutate like any other cold or flu. Are we going to shut down & go Orwell every time it
pops up? We're f'ed.
Neil Ferguson hasn't been part of b's coronavirus narrative, but his bad statistics (he has a
history) are key to the whole story. Great opinion piece by R.R. Reno
:
"On March 16, Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London predicted a coronavirus death toll
of more than two million in the United States alone. He arrived at this number by assuming
that infection would be nearly universal and the fatality rate would be high -- a terrifying
prospect. The next day, Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis sifted through the data and
predicted less widespread infection and a fatality rate of between 0.05 and 1.0 percent --
not that different from the common flu. The coronavirus is not the common flu. It has
different characteristics, afflicting the old more than the young, men more than women.
Nevertheless, all data trends since mid-March show that Ferguson was fantastically wrong and
Ioannidis was largely right about its mortal threat. [fairleft: Reno goes too far here: data
indicates Covid-19 is worse than the flu for the vulnerable, possibly much worse depending on
age and the severity of their vulnerability.]
"But Ferguson's narrative has triumphed, helped by our incontinent and irresponsible
media. ...
"Our entire ruling class, which united behind catastrophism and the untested methods of
mass shutdown, is implicated in the unfolding fiasco.
"Journalists continue to sustain the pandemic narrative. Ioannidis is still ignored,
though the evidence I outlined above has been building for weeks. ..."
[[U of Oxford prediction: "Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data,
increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of
misclassification of deaths gives a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR somewhere between
0.1% and 0.36%." All studies so far are flawed and not all are within that range, but here
are basically ALL of them, which generally point to the Oxford prediction being about
right:
NYC shopping center: 0.6%
Santa Clara County: 0.1 - 0.2%
LA County: 0.1 - 0.3%
Oise, France high school: 0.0%
Gangelt, Germany: 0.37%
Bergamo, Italy: 0.57%
Lombardio, Italy: 0.87%
Iceland: 0.05%
UK: 0.9%
China: 0.66%
Boston homeless shelter: 0.0%
US Navy ship: 0.07% ]]
R.R. Reno concludes:
"We've been stampeded into a regime of social control that is unprecedented in our
history. Our economy has been shattered.... As unemployment numbers skyrocket and Congress
spends trillions, the political stakes rise.
"The experts, professionals, bureaucrats, and public officials who did this to us have
tremendous incentives to close ranks and say, 'It is not wise to tell people that the danger
was never grave and now has passed.' Sustaining the coronavirus narrative will require many
lies. It will be up to us to insist on the truth."
Ted Arison, the Israeli-American founder of Carnival [Covid] Cruise Line is among those
appointed to advise president Trump on how to open up the US economy. Perhaps, as music to
the ears of a seasoned New York real estate shark, he will advise Trump to blame China and
then default on the China debt mountain. Litigation pays as Arison is about to find out.
"... To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community, which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after he was elected, his presidency ..."
"... While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as Trump does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration is nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly everyone surrounding the president ..."
"... Most damaging to consumer interests, the rot has also affected the so-called regulatory agencies that are supposed to monitor the potentially illegal activities of corporations and industries to protect the public. As University of Chicago economist George Stigler several times predicted, under both Obama and Trump advocates of ostensibly "regulated" corporations have taken over every U.S. federal regulatory agency . The captured U.S. government regulators now represent the interests of the corporations, not the public. This is more like government by a criminal oligarchy rather than of, by and for The People. ..."
The 24/7 intensified media coverage of the coronavirus story has meant that other news has
either been ignored or relegated to the back pages, never to be seen again. The Middle East has
been on a boil but coverage of the Trump administration's latest
moves against Iran has been so insignificant as to be invisible. Meanwhile closer to home,
the declaration by the ubiquitous Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that current president of
Venezuela Nicolas Maduro is a drug trafficker did generate somewhat of a ripple, as did
dispatch of warships to the Caribbean to intercept the alleged drugs, but that story also
died.
Of more interest perhaps is the tale of the continued purge of government officials,
referred to as "draining the swamp," by President Donald Trump as it could conceivably have
long-term impact on how policy is shaped in Washington. Prior to the virus partial lockdown,
some of the impending shakeup within the
intelligence community (IC) and Pentagon were commented on in the media, but developments
since that time have been less reported, even when several inspectors-general were removed.
To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community,
which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after
he was elected, his presidency. Whether one argues that what took place was due to a "Deep
state" or Establishment conspiracy or rather just based on personal ambition by key players,
the reality was that a number of top officials seem to have forgotten the oaths they swore to
the constitution when it came to Donald Trump.
Be that as it may, beyond the musical chairs that have characterized the senior level
appointments in the first three years of the Trump administration, there has been a concerted
effort to remove "disloyal" members of the intelligence community, with disloyal generally
being the label applied to holdovers from the Bush and Obama administrations. The February
appointment of U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard "Ric" Grenell as interim Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), a position that he will hold simultaneously with his ambassadorship, has
been criticized from all sides due to his inexperience, history of bad judgement and
partisanship. The White House is now claiming
that he will be replaced by Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe after the interim appointment
is completed.
Criticism of Grenell for his clearly evident deficiencies misses the point, however, as he
is not in place to do anything constructive. He has already initiated a purge of federal
employees in the White House and national security apparatus considered to be insufficiently
loyal, an effort which has been supported by National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Many career officers have been sent back to their home agencies
while the new appointees are being drawn from the pool of neoconservatives that proliferated in
the George W. Bush administration. Admittedly some prominent neocons like Bill Kristol have
disqualified themselves for service with the new regime due to their vitriolic criticism of
Trump the candidate, but many others have managed to remain politically viable by keeping their
mouths shut during the 2016 campaign. To no one's surprise, many of the new employees being
brought in are being carefully vetted to make sure that they are passionate supporters of
Israel.
While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as Trump
does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration is
nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly
everyone surrounding the president, even several layers down into the administration where
employees are frequently apolitical. As the Trump White House has not been renowned for its
adroit policies and forward thinking, the loss of expertise will be hardly noticeable, but
there will certainly be a reduction in challenges to group think while replacing officials in
the law enforcement and inspector general communities will mean that there will be no one in a
high enough position to impede or check presidential misbehavior. Instead, high officials will
be principally tasked with coming up with rationalizations to excuse what the White House
does.
... ... ...
Subsequent to the defenestration of Atkinson, Trump went after another inspector general
Glenn Fine, who was principal deputy IG at the Pentagon and had been charged with heading the
panel of inspectors that would have oversight responsibility to certify the proper
implementation of the $2.2 trillion dollar coronavirus relief package. As has been noted in the
media, there was particular concern regarding the lack of transparency regarding the $500
billion Exchange Stabilizing Fund (ESF) that had been set aside to make loans to corporations
and other large companies while the really urgently needed Small Business Loan allocation has
been failing to work at all except for Israeli
companies that have lined up for the loans. The risk that the ESF would become a slush fund
for companies favored by the White House was real, and several investigative reports observed
that Trump business interests might also directly benefit from the way it was drafted.
Four days after the firing of Atkinson, Fine also was let go to be replaced by the EPA
inspector general Sean O'Donnell, who is considered a Trump loyalist. On the previous day the
tweeter-in-chief came down on yet another IG, the woman responsible for Health and Human
Services Christi Grimm, who had issued a report stating that the her department had found "severe"
shortages of virus testing material at hospitals and "widespread" shortages of personal
protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers. Trump quipped to reporters "Where did he
come from, the inspector general. What's his name?"
On the following day, Trump unleashed the tweet machine, asking "Why didn't the I.G., who
spent 8 years with the Obama Administration (Did she Report on the failed H1N1 Swine Flu
debacle where 17,000 people died?), want to talk to the Admirals, Generals, V.P. & others
in charge, before doing her report. Another Fake Dossier!"
A comment about foxes taking over the hen house would not be amiss and one might also note
that the swamp is far from drained. A concerted effort is clearly underway to purge anyone from
the upper echelons of the U.S. government who in any way contradicts what is coming out of the
White House. Inspectors general who are tasked with looking into malfeasance are receiving the
message that if they want to stay employed, they have to toe the presidential line, even as it
seemingly whimsically changes day by day. And then there is the irony of the heads at major
agencies like Environmental Protection now being committed to not enforcing existing
environmental regulations at all.
Most damaging to consumer interests, the rot has also affected the so-called regulatory
agencies that are supposed to monitor the potentially illegal activities of corporations and
industries to protect the public. As University of Chicago economist George Stigler several
times predicted, under both Obama and Trump advocates of ostensibly "regulated" corporations
have taken over every U.S. federal regulatory agency . The captured U.S. government
regulators now represent the interests of the corporations, not the public. This is more like
government by a criminal oligarchy rather than of, by and for The People.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected] .
I yield to no one in my contempt for the fraud-failure of God Emperor Bush III but the author
has to be aware that talk of "impeachable" offenses is meaningless in American politics.
There has never been and never will be an impeachment effort that's not primarily
political rather than process-motivated. It's an up-or-down vote based on a partisan
head-counting and opportunism and public dissatisfaction. All the Article-this-and-that is
Magic Paper Talmudry.
Trump is a somewhat rogueish, somewhat rival Don and faction-head in the same criminal
(((Commission))) that's been running America for well over a century. He's Jon Gotti to their
Carlo Gambino, and his gauche nouveaux-elite style offends the sensibilities of the more
snobbish Davoise, but he's just angling for a seat at the table and a cut of the spoils, not
a return of power to the people.
Impeachment would serve no purpose but what we've seen so far with Russiagate, etc..
– a sideshow distraction from the real backroom, long-knife action going down, ala the
"settling scores" montage in Godfather III.
"To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community,
which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after
he was elected, his presidency." -- Yes to this. This is OBVIOUS to all but the dullest rubes
or those who are in on it and trying to escape what they tried to do in attempting to over
throw the US Government. The rest?
Once you have this stated– that an actual Coup which was certainly plotted/sprung by
the last occupant of the Presidency along with Clinton, Brennan, Comey, and many other NWO
Globalists throughout the Government (FBI, CIA, DOJ ) and outside of it (the Globalist NWO
MEDIA) the rest is drivel -- they tried to take him out–JFK they used a bullet, here
not yet– so to say he shouldn't put in people he absolutely trusts at this time into
any position he can? Are you kidding or what? You can't be serious– I've actually had
someone try and kill me they were quite serious about it– my reaction after was not
anything like what I see you suggesting or mirrored in your "analysis". This is how the CIA
"counsels" in response to a murderous Coup -- an attempt to overthrow the duly elected
Government?
How do you overreact to a group of the most powerful people in the World getting together
to try to murder you? That's your argument basically– he's over reacting to that? He
shouldn't have "Loyalists". He needs to work with these other people -- the ones who want to
murder him -- keep some of those "non-Loyalists" on board who time after time have plotted
against him in every way possible during the last nearly 4 years?
You seem to be one strange dude from my life's vantage point any way, what a perspective
.Maybe you would actually deal with people of this magnitude trying to destroy you in the way
you state but no sane/fairly intelligent person would -- I can't get past you have that
sentence in there and then follow it with all the rest -- you seem to live in some alternate
reality where when someone tries to murder you the right reaction is to blow it off and work
with them– give them another few shots at you– say what? You learned this from
your years at the CIA– this is how they train/advise things like this should be dealt
with up at Langley? Or is it just wishful thinking on your part that they get another shot at
him?
While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as
Trump does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration
is nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly
everyone surrounding the president
True enough. Trump has also injected into Washington his own nest of swamp creatures and
Wall St. bigwigs. However it is also true that Trump has been under unrelenting attack since
the day he announced his candidacy. This is not fair. With the possible exception of Nixon,
I've never seen a more ruthless campaign by political insiders to demean a public figure.
But to whom must Trump show ceaseless and attentive loyalty to?–no matter what?
I can't get too worked up about the firing of the prison guards; I rather enjoy the
charade.
The real problem is that: 'It's the system, stupid!' and no amount of tinkering or puting
the 'right' people in these positions will ever do anything more than just changing the
illusion that something is being done.
It reminds me a little of that late Soviet Union film "Burned by the Sun" about Stalin's
purges of the criminals that had ridden his coat tails to power. Try as the movie makers did,
I could not and would not feel an ounce of sorrow for those (these) scumbags who had wielded
immoral, arbitrary, and disproportionate power over their subjects.
The government has been against the people for my entire lifetime (I'm an old man now). One
of the only glimmers of light in that time, JFK was snuffed out. After all, who did he think
he was, trying to stop the elites from having their war in Vietnam?
He (Trump) should have purged all of the Obama appointees on day one.
The Vindman twins are a perfect example of the Deep State.
While I can understand your loathing of Trump's middle East policies, I do also, what he has
blatantley done vis a vis the Zionist Entity is very little different than what slick Obama
did under the table, outside of the Iran deal.
And to tell you the truth, as much as I loathe Israel the Iran deal was definitely flawed and
should have been more advantageous to America and the West. Iran should have seen the
advantages of totally relinquishing nuclear weapons even with mad Zionists in their
neighborhood. They could have still kept their ballistic missiles, sans nuclear tips.
@Getaclue
The idea that Trump is fighting the Deep State is ludacris this is a charade if the Deep
State didn't want Trump to be President he wouldn't be. Trump is a Deep State minion. No
matter the existential threat to the US the 1% get richer and the 99% get poorer.
He (Trump) should have purged all of the Obama appointees on day one.
That supposes that Trump is not a Deep Stater as was Obama this is a poor supposition.
Iran should have seen the advantages of totally relinquishing nuclear weapons even with
mad Zionists in their neighborhood. They could have still kept their ballistic missiles,
sans nuclear tips.
Ballistic missiles, sans nuclear tips are useless. Did anybody care when North Korea had
ballistic missiles before they had something worthwhile to put on the tip? Hell no.
Trump has had two open coup attempts in three years, and a constant barrage of leaks etc. His
purges are clearly at least three years too late.
Also, to an outsider, it's strange how some right-wing American journalists write in a way
which indicates that they have faith in the due process, checks-and-balances etc afforded by
the American system. I don't understand how any American right-winger could maintain their
faith in the U.S. political system, it seems corrupt approaching the point that it is
beyond-repair.
Trump's MAGA For The People efforts, must take steps to undo the damage done by the
prior criminal admistration.
Here is an detailed explanation of how Barack Hussein intentionally undermined the rule of
law:(1)
Aside from the date the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it.
The DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application
still contains "sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause" to
approve the application. The DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still
valid.
However, it is within the justification of the application that alarm bells are found.
On page six the letter identifies the primary participants behind the FISA
redactions:
DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA
authority. That's the motive.
In July 2018 if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were
fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a
result of its exploitation. The DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller's poisoned fruit.
If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there's a strong possibility some, perhaps
much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated and cases were pending. The
solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.
I am not sure why Giraldi is defending Barack Hussein and Hillary Clinton's behaviour
& staff choices. All rational human beings see the damage that Hillary created at the
State Department.
The US is the biggest funder of the World Health Organization and his announcement drew
widespread criticism. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, whose foundation was the second-biggest
funder
of the WHO in 2018-19, called the decision " as dangerous as it sounds ."
Halting funding for the World Health Organization during a world health crisis is as
dangerous as it sounds. Their work is slowing the spread of COVID-19 and if that work is
stopped no other organization can replace them. The world needs @WHO now more than ever.
Trump also faces a battle with Congress, which is actually responsible for allocating
funding. I'm not a fan of Trump, but to some extent he has a point.
There have been plenty of critics of the WHO's handling of the outbreak. The organization's
initial response is now seen as far too accepting of the official Chinese government line in
the first few weeks. In particular, a single social media message has come back to haunt it. On
January 14, the organization said on Twitter: " Preliminary investigations conducted by the
Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel
#coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China. "
Defenders of the WHO point to guidance sent to governments on January 10 and 11, outlining
the way the virus spreads and asking health officials to be alert to any 'evidence of amplified
or sustained human-to-human transmission.' Those WHO supporters also note that Trump himself
had tweeted support for Beijing's handling of the situation in the early days of the outbreak.
For many observers, Trump's attacks on the WHO are self-serving, designed to deflect criticism
away from his initially slow and skeptical response to what he calls the "Chinese
virus."
While the WHO was perhaps too slow on the uptake, we should be wary of critics' implication
that it should be given the job of policing national governments. For now, the WHO is in an
awkward position of having to deal with the politics of different member countries while
responding to health emergencies. Moreover, the WHO 'cried wolf' over the 2009 swine flu
pandemic. The WHO's director general at the time, Margaret Chan, famously said " All of
humanity is under threat " from the outbreak, but it proved to be far less deadly than
feared. A bit more caution over the new coronavirus was probably sensible.
"... "No matter what you do for the Do Nothing Democrats, no matter how GREAT a job you are doing, they will only respond to their Fake partners in the Lamestream Media in the negative, even in a time of crisis," ..."
"... "rude and nasty" ..."
"... "He gave them everything that they would have wanted to hear in terms of gaining ground on the CoronaVirus, but nothing that anyone could have said, including 'it's over,' could have made them happy," ..."
"... "They were RUDE and NASTY. This is their political playbook, and they will use it right up to the election on November 3rd," ..."
"... "America will not be fooled!!!" ..."
"... "never been so mad about a phone call" ..."
"... "the administration still doesn't have a plan to track daily testing capacity in every lab in the country, publicly release that data, and put forward a plan and timeline for identifying gaps." ..."
Donald Trump slammed Democrats for a "rude and nasty" phone call with the vice president
over the Covid-19 pandemic, and theorized nothing will satisfy them as they try to "fool"
America in November's election.
"No matter what you do for the Do Nothing Democrats, no matter how GREAT a job you are
doing, they will only respond to their Fake partners in the Lamestream Media in the negative,
even in a time of crisis," Trump tweeted on Saturday.
He added that his working relationship with Democrats during the Covid-19 pandemic has been
"even worse" than before and revealed senators held a "rude and nasty"
conference call with Vice President Mike Pence, who heads the White House Coronavirus Task
Force, on Friday where little progress was made.
"He gave them everything that they would have wanted to hear in terms of gaining ground
on the CoronaVirus, but nothing that anyone could have said, including 'it's over,' could have
made them happy," the president vented.
"They were RUDE and NASTY. This is their political playbook, and they will use it right
up to the election on November 3rd," he continued, adding that "America will not be
fooled!!!"
No matter what you do for the Do Nothing Democrats, no matter how GREAT a job you are
doing, they will only respond to their Fake partners in the Lamestream Media in the negative,
even in a time of crisis. I thought it would be different, but it's not. In fact, it's even
worse...
....them happy, or even a little bit satisfied. They were RUDE and NASTY. This is their
political playbook, and they will use it right up to the election on November 3rd. They will
not change because they feel that this is the only way they can win. America will not be
fooled!!!
Some lawmakers have expressed just as much animosity over the talk as the president. Maine
Sen. Angus King (I) said he has "never been so mad about a phone call" in his
life.
A point of contention appears to be Trump's desire to begin rolling back stay-at-home orders
and reopening the US economy next month, while many Democrats insist more Covid-19 testing must
be done first.
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-New Hampshire) tweeted after the call that she is concerned "the
administration still doesn't have a plan to track daily testing capacity in every lab in the
country, publicly release that data, and put forward a plan and timeline for identifying
gaps."
Various governors, such as New York's Andrew Cuomo, continue to insist more thorough testing
and tracing of the virus is needed before they consider reopening their states and easing back
lockdown orders, while places like Texas, Minnesota, and Florida have already begun dropping
restrictions as more and more citizens take to demonstrating and protesting against the
measures.
Level of mismanaging of epidemic in Trump administration is staggering. Initially they
ignored it, but then switch to full panic mode facilitated by such questionable experts as Fauci.
Panic reaction with "one size fits all" quarantine measures created record unemployment.
BTW NIH fiscal year 2020 budget totals $41.6 billion.
The fact that Fauci did nothing to protect NY metropolitan areas means that he is incompetent
to hold this position.
More than a dozen U.S. researchers, physicians and public health experts, many of them from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, were working full time at the Geneva
headquarters of the World Health Organization as the novel coronavirus emerged late last year
and transmitted real-time information about its discovery and spread in China to the Trump
administration, according to U.S. and international officials.
A number of CDC staffers are regularly detailed to work at WHO in Geneva as part of a
rotation that has operated for years. Senior Trump-appointed health officials also consulted
regularly at the highest levels with the WHO as the crisis unfolded, the officials said.
The presence of so many U.S. officials undercuts President Trump's charge that the WHO's
failure to communicate the extent of the threat, born of a desire to protect China, is largely
responsible for
the rapid spread of the virus in the United States.
There is hope. The coronavirus crisis has exposed the relative merits of nations, so the
entire world can see, for example, how broken and corrupt the US is, with no leadership to
speak of. Dawdling, it failed to prevent needless deaths, then shut down much of the
country, bankrupting thousands of businesses and throwing millions out of work. As a fix,
it throws mere crumbs at desperate citizens, while bailing out the big banks, again.
Whilst most of the text is basically true, it never at any point rises above the level of
a rant. And whilst I agree that Trump is a malicious and incompetent psychopath and
pathological liar, I disagree that he has no redeeming features.
His first and most precious redeeming feature is his crude, brazenly outspoken directness,
which aggravates and strains psychopathic relations with close mafia colleagues (i.e.
"allies"), opens the eyes of potential doubters, and stirs to a fever the passions of the
US's many opponents and victims.
His second most important redeeming feature is his incompetence and his proclivity to
surround himself by retarded idiots blinded by their hippocracy, bigotry and hubris.
Together, these two valuable redeeming features serve to accelerate the high speed train
leading to the inevitably and amply deserved collapse of Empire.
In his maliciousness, his incompetence, his psychopathic behaviour, his pathological
lying, his brutal scheming, his avidly undertaken crimes against humanity, and his gross
inhumanity he differs not one single iota from all other US presidents in living memory if
not beyond. All that differentiates him from those other presidents are his redeeming
features. We would do well to bear that in mind when judging him. That is in sharp contrast
to the slimy suave lies and crafty covering up of Obomber, from whom he differs in no other
respect.
It is very unfortunate about the Covid-19 outbreak, but that too may have a potential
redeeming feature - maybe, just maybe, we will be able to see the collapse of Empire without
war. Or even if there is a war initiated by these crazed psychopaths, in their drunken
Covid-19 laden stupors, maybe the US military will simply fizzle out like a damp firework
under their weight of gross incompetence, ineptitude and Covid-19 enstranglement.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you a toast: to the collapse of Empire, may it be speedy and
thorough, like a high speed train crashing headling into a cliff, and may it be without
war!
There, a rant in reply to a rant! Alas, MoA is not at its finest hour.
"... FEMA and Homeland Security are but the most glaring example of departments stocked with hacks capable only of crippling the organizations that they are supposed to direct. They even corrupted the Center for Disease Control. ..."
"... The readiness of executives to do anything necessary to protect against exposure of their own failures or illicit actions has become commonplace within our institutions. ..."
"... As to the Crozier scandal, let's be clear: it is not a matter of ethics alone, but also of ability to meet critical obligations. ..."
"... Naval Secretary Thomas Motly – who missed his calling as a political commissar in the old Red Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Miley and Chief of Naval Operations Mike Gilday who both are testament to the Peter Principle that determines promotion in today's military. ..."
"... An [neoliberal] "oligarchy" has no interest in the long-term prosperity and strength of the nation - or perhaps, they simply have no faith in it. They are motivated to strip-mine the nation of all wealth while it lasts, because if they don't someone else will. They can live in walled compounds and go to private doctors, and if it all falls apart they can just gather up their loot and sail away on their yachts. ..."
"... After all the agony and hysteria surrounding the election of Trump for 3 years, they will nominate an elderly warmonger with obvious signs of dementia, who can't seem to keep his hands off women in a creepy fashion - as the alternative. It's as if there was a contest on how extreme a "lesser of two evils" can get. Tack on Covid and financial ruin. It's astounding. ..."
"... Come this epidemic and what do we see? What we see is that at least the UK government, the US government and the Canadian government were lying. It is quite clear that they were NOT expecting to be attacked. How do I know they were not expecting to be attacked? They had NO stores of hand sanitizer, NO stores of masks, NO goggles, NO stores of PPE, No factories for making any of them. NO troops of Bio/Chem warfare soldiers ready to spring into action and NO PLANS, as far as I can see. Are we to assume that if they were attacked by, say, the Russians, they were going to rely on the Chinese to supply them? (Sarcasm!) ..."
"... Lol. Trump has under 4 years working for the federal gov. It isn't his system. It is the typical repugs and dingbats system. He is an idiot for leaving his cushy life to join these idiots. It certainly doesn't speak well of his judgement. The people who work there and the people he has hired... Pompeo, Bolton, Esper, etc have worked there for decades. Bolton is an especially rotten character that seems to just keep popping up. ..."
"... i would like to emphasize a key point you make - accountability, and how there is none.. that to me is the number uno issue in the world today and it is very stark with regard to the usa - accountability... of course obama kicked that concept down the road too... no accountability.. it sucks big time.. we need it desperately... ..."
"... Okay... he's not a psychoapath, Don. I'll settle malignant sociopathic narcissist, which means by definition and demonstration that he would not know empathy were it to leap up and smack him in the face. Liar? We can soften that too. He is a serial fantasists living in the worlds he creates and like a spoiled child demands, raging when his wishes are not instantly gratified. ..."
"... When I was young I was always looking up for US, don't know why, maybe I have been fascinated by a culture, lifestyle, innovations.. when I got older and started to read about what actually happens in the world, I realized that US is not what it seemed to be anymore and I think its just getting worse.. ..."
"... Basically, no matter if is there Trump, Obama, Bush, Biden, Hillary or Easter Bunny.. your government to its core is really sick.. ..."
"... Everytime i read about decision US made, how is profit driven at expense of regular people, its a disgrace.. and more and more people in the world can see it.. just Trump himself exposed more the whole thing, chaotic, selfish, rude and arrogant government, not ashamed of anything. ..."
Collective tragedy is always a learning experience. So it has been for great wars, natural
disasters, economic collapses, political revolutions. The COVID-19 pandemic is such a tragedy.
Although the number of casualties may pale compared to the carnage of war, there are ancillary
effects that leave us shocked and sobered. Most obviously, there is sudden onset of a severe
economic depression with attendant social distress whose toll we will be registering for years
to come. Then, there is the exposure of how incompetent our public institutions have become
– the callous inhumanity of those who rule in Washington matched only by their clownish
ineptitude. It is in the realm of these latter intangibles that we should look first for morals
and lessons.
Overriding all else is the spectacle of a President, duly elected by the American people,
who is a malicious psychopath with not a single redeeming trait. A physical, intellectual and
emotional spectre who would defy our imaginative powers were he not on display before our eyes.
He has gathered around him a witch's coven of scoundrels, crooks and crackpots as bereft of
mind and ethics as he is. They also are inveterate liars; Trump himself is a congenital liar
since clinical narcissism is inborn. Yet, we refer to this motley assemblage as an
'administration' – in our impulse to 'normalize' the abominable. No dry bill of
particulars is necessary, nor could it do justice, to the squalid theater we see played out
before us on a daily basis. This man, at this moment, is viewed favorably by 46% of the public.
That reality eclipses everything else.
There is no organized opposition worthy of the name. This is the second great failure of our
democracy. The Democratic Party creaks under the weight of geriatric nominal leaders –
plodding along without conviction, without will, without the integrity to free itself from the
monied interests and the self-serving careerists who have dragged it into the mire. Yes, they
may succeed, come November, in sparing the Republic the coup de grace of four more Trumpian
years. This despite their suicidal instinct in choosing Joe Biden to bear the standard –
a man barely robust enough to keep the banner from dragging in the dust on his slog along the
campaign trail. This bunch can't even get themselves to a microphone for a news clip at a time
of historic crisis aggravated by the atrocious sins of the existing government. Surely, a
first. Worried about Covid-19 contagion? Order a box of alcohol wipes from China. Instead,
Biden makes a call to Trump for what both agree was a 'nice conversation.' What does that get
him?
Cuomo has to placate Trump with soothing words – even at the expense of lying about
how much aid New York actually received from Washington – since the lives of his people
are at stake. For Biden, the opposite is true; avoiding soothing words is crucial since the
November election is dependent on undercutting Trump and discrediting him.
Three, the United States is a poorly governed country. Manifest ineptitude in performing
collective functions is by no means limited to Washington under Trump. It has become a feature
of the institutional landscape. True, the Trumpites have launched a dedicated campaign to
realize the anti-government fanatics' wet dream of disabling all public agencies. FEMA and
Homeland Security are but the most glaring example of departments stocked with hacks capable
only of crippling the organizations that they are supposed to direct. They even corrupted the
Center for Disease Control. Its leaders, evidently eager to curry favor with the madman in the
Oval Office, gave its stamp of approval to the unproven – and dangerous drug HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE that Trump's been promoting as the Silver Bullet to cure Covid-19. (April
4-6) Luckily, saner heads prevailed, or a conscience was pricked, and these panting spaniels
withdrew the recommendation from their website.
... ... ...
At local levels, just look at the condition of infrastructure, of pension funds – of
public health. The extremity – and, frankly, the absurdity - of what's happening in the
health sector is highlighted by what we see elsewhere in the world. Face masks, including ones
that actually provide protection, are readily available throughout East Asia – and
elsewhere. A personal anecdote: relatives in Tunisia are mailing me N95 masks which they
purchased in their neighborhood pharmacies. Indeed, as of April 8, Tunisia had produced by
their own resources, and distributed 30 million masks to a population of 11 million. The
equivalent here would be 1 billion masks! (Minus the 1 million sent express to Israel by the
Pentagon as a ritual gift of fealty.) In America, we are offered instructions on how to sew a
(probably useless) mask out of discarded T-shirts. MAGA!! Hospital directors fire nurses who
buy their own equipment out of concern that they will be upstaged and exposed as the callous,
profit obsessed bozos they are. Yet, we blind ourselves to the realities of other nations
– because to do so is embarrassing, because our so-called leaders are protecting their
behinds, and because we compulsively retain our dogmatic faith in American superiority.*
The readiness of executives to do anything necessary to protect against exposure of their
own failures or illicit actions has become commonplace within our institutions. The current
Corona crisis puts that reality into the headlines – as with the despicable act of the
Pentagon in dismissing summarily Captain Brett Crozier whose petition made known that his
superiors were prepared to sacrifice his crew's lives to the imperative of hiding their own
errors. Is this notion that 'anything goes except accountability' any different from Harvard's
studied silence about its embrace of Jeffrey Epstein or its abrupt sacking of a professor who
dared reveal that the President was sweeping under the academic rug rampant sexual abuses? We
all have personal experience of similar stories.
As to the Crozier scandal, let's be clear: it is not a matter of ethics alone, but also of
ability to meet critical obligations. In the event that the country found itself at war against
a serious enemy, it is a dangerous liability to have in positions of command people like
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper (hack lobbyist for Raytheon and the
Aerospace Industries Association ), Naval Secretary Thomas Motly – who missed his
calling as a political commissar in the old Red Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Miley
and Chief of Naval Operations Mike Gilday who both are testament to the Peter Principle that
determines promotion in today's military. They would either be washed out in the wake of gross
failures, or continue to be albatrosses dragging out pointless missions like the 17 bemedaled
but clueless U.S. generals who have proven so useless in Afghanistan. As it is, they seem
unable to keep their warships from slamming into inanimate objects in placid waters.
Here are Motly's last remarks before riding off to join corporate boards: "The men and women
of the Department of the Navy deserve a continuity of civilian leadership befitting our great
Republic, and the decisive naval force that secures our way of life he acknowledged that he
"lost situational awareness" during his address to the Roosevelt's crew." "There is no excuse,
but perhaps a glimpse of understanding, and hopefully empathy. I am deeply sorry for some of
the words and for how they spread across the media landscape like a wildfire." (The New York
Times – ever twisting its hat with eyes averted in the presence of intimidating
Presidential authority – features a long letter from Motly justifying his actions, 4/7.
Only 3, 1 Republican, 2 Democrats, protested Crozier's mistreatment. Among the silent chorus
were the 22/23 aspirants to the Democratic nomination who bored us stiff for fifteen months
with their unceasing calls for "LEADERSHIP!" 'Profiles In Courage' is not a best-seller at the
Capitol. Even Dr. Fauce doesn't have a copy.
Absence of accountability is incompatible with good governance. That is especially true in
democracies where accountability is ultimately downwards. In a country like China, where
accountability is primarily upward, the circle can be squared by the occasional resort to
putting some miscreant up against the wall. We don't have that luxury. Here, it is only the
weak, the indigent and the naïve who need fear punishment – of any kind. The
powerful and well-connected worry less about a last cigarette than about their first.
In compiling a list of factors that have contributed to the drastic decline in the
performance of American institutions, this parochialism figures prominently among them. We put
up with levels of dereliction matched in the developed world only by Britain. Think of the
debate over Medicare-for-All and like proposals. As alluded to in an earlier commentary, the
best national medical insurance systems (as confirmed by the WHO and other independent bodies)
are in Western Europe, Canada and Japan – France topping the list. Yet, their expenditure
on those systems is only 2/3 of what we pay for our own ramshackle non-system. That fact is
ignored. Instead, the political class agonizes over the specious issue of whether we can afford
it. Joe Biden has pledged to veto any such plan on grounds that it would cost $35 trillion
– or whatever number has floated into his fog-bound mind. This lethal combination of
ignorance, dogmatism and fidelity to special interests has come to be a hallmark of how we
approach government and the meeting of collective needs.
A full treatment of the several intertwined, mutually reinforcing elements that have led us
along the path of decline is well beyond the limits of a brief commentary. A few, though, do
deserve to be mentioned for what – one hopes – might be future reference. One is
the 'privatization ' craze. It has become the preferred method for transferring public assets
to private profiteers. The effects are degraded services, the loss of expertise in public
bodies, the exploitation of workers and the abandonment of intelligent planning (ventilators
anyone?). With the COVID-19 affair, we've reached the ultimate privatization: the Federal
Reserve has hired BlackRock to conduct its operations on the bond market as the central
component of its $4 trillion Quantitative Easing strategy (BlackRock itself being the dominant
player on that market). The same effects have been produced by the swarm of hedge funds and
private equity who are parasites feeding on the prostrate host that is the real economy and its
dependents. American society celebrates, and empowers, these critters. Then there are the '
consultants ' – the locust hordes which our culture designates as vital contributors to
the good works of government, of business, of universities, of charities, of sports teams, of
hospitals, of failing marriages, of the US Army that puts guns in their hands. They, too, add
to the toll on public competence and collective services.
Another anecdote: the city of Austin, Texas has hired a consulting firm to advise them on
designs for a reconfiguration of the street that runs in front of the University of Texas.
Should the sidewalks be 8' wide or 10' wide? Curbed or uncurbed? With bicycle racks or without?
These matters evidently are beyond the competence of the city government, and of the
University's 3,000 strong expert faculty.
'My Kingdom for a tape measure!' How about a 69-cent face mask?
*Consider this. During WW II, the Kaiser shipyard in Richmond, CA – along with its 17
counterparts - were able to construct 2,710 Liberty ships between 1941 and 1945 (an average of
three ships every two days), In other words, it took each yard just twelve days to put a ship
in the water. That was the work of Rosie the Riveter and her colleagues. Today, we struggle to
produce a few thousand $1 face masks - much less reliable COVID-19 test kits. Of course, back
then the country was led by responsible adults – not the bunch of clods and delinquents
we're stuck with nowadays.
Posted by b on April 17, 2020 at 14:00 UTC | Permalink
If this virus is not a nasty flu, then what is it? A plague? Similar in effect as the Black
Death? Had 2 members of my family and a dear friend catch this thing. 2 of them suffered just
3 days of a fluctuating fever and cold symptoms. After that it disappeared. Only one, my
aunt, in her early seventies, had to be put on a respirator. But is recovering well. Is it
worth it to bring our economy to absolute devastation, where good people lose everything, end
up destitute, having to live in the streets, with no where to go? \
And rely on bureaucrats,
our government, whether state or federal, Democrat or Republican or Socialist, for their
daily bread? What about people with severe mental health, who need to be away from home, need
a job to maintain their stability, now with no work or money, will fall off the deep end,
even commit suicide because they have no where to turn? Is it worth it ? Everything we've
been doing? Why in other periods in history, with similar diseases, nothing was shut down as
profoundly as being done these days, and life went on? People did die, not to mock their
passing. But it brings me back. If not a nasty flu, is it worth it?
Agree with #1. Our leader, as imperfect as he is, as we all are, is the only leader we have.
If he fails to lead us through this crisis, we all fail. IMHO aside from occasional
politic-ing, answering charges of one kind or another against him, often the opposite from
day to day (e.g. one day he's trying to control everything, now he's abandoned control to the
overwhelmed governors), is doing an acceptable job, considering the problems he;'s
facing.
Couldn't agree more with Don in comment 1, the newfound lust for censorship and evangelism
for official right think found here is disappointing, this seems no longer to be a place to
ask questions and seek truth sincerely.
What is now obvious has for a long time been concealed: the U.S. is not a democracy, there is
no such thing as a "free market", capitalism has proved incapable of meeting the most basic
needs during a crisis, there are no leaders accountable to anyone other than our ruling
oligarchs, the U.S. is anything but a "bastion of freedom", and most other nations have
plenty of justifiable reasons to hate the U.S.
The only question remaining is how long will folks in the U.S. hide from these truths and
do nothing about them?
I agree this is ridiculous. Trump may be a lot of things, but the last thing he would EVER
want to do/happen in this election year where was cruising along home-free, is to have this
horrible pandemic blow up in front of him.
Also, he would NEVER have taken along and risked his entire family on a useless state
visit to India where all they did was attend meaningless photo-op events and watch Indian
kids dance the Hindi cha-cha.
Not even his chief of staff Mike Mulvaney went alond (unheard-of for CoS to not accompany
a potus on official state visits).
This tells me Trump was (kept?) in the dark about true depth of pandemic risk brewing.
An honest economist (back in the day when there actually were still a few) once said that
the key to a nation is whether it ruled by an establishment, or an oligarchy.
An "establishment" is old-money connected etc., but has some sense of ownership and duty.
An establishment is willing to forgo short-term profits in favor of long-term strength,
because they expect that they or their heirs will be around to have a piece of it.
"Establishment" leaders would be FDR, Eisenhower, DeGaulle, Bismarck, Lee Kuan Yew...
An [neoliberal] "oligarchy" has no interest in the long-term prosperity and strength of the nation - or
perhaps, they simply have no faith in it. They are motivated to strip-mine the nation of all
wealth while it lasts, because if they don't someone else will. They can live in walled
compounds and go to private doctors, and if it all falls apart they can just gather up their
loot and sail away on their yachts.
For Trump, Brenner can thank the silver-tongued Obama and his murderous secretary of state,
both of whom are worst kind of liars - the kind that tell people what they want to hear while
doing the opposite.
Thank you for posting this. The US seems to be like coming to your home and finding Bigfoot
seated in a living room chair - with no one expressing any surprise or even interest in his
presence.
After all the agony and hysteria surrounding the election of Trump for 3 years, they will
nominate an elderly warmonger with obvious signs of dementia, who can't seem to keep his
hands off women in a creepy fashion - as the alternative. It's as if there was a contest on
how extreme a "lesser of two evils" can get. Tack on Covid and financial ruin. It's
astounding.
The only positives I can find are evidence that the elite aren't totally in control ( or
there would be no Biden or Trump running) AND that the US is too big and dominant to collapse
anytime soon - a sort of geo-political inertia. Same goes for the dollar, even if they turn
it into high grade toilet paper.
This is the first time I have commented on your site but read daily. This is one of the best
reads I have seen. It defines the failure of the country so clearly, to bad Don was unable to
hear the criticism of his fearless leader and move beyond it. This failure has long roots and
the writer nails it. I remember a few years back sitting down with our commissioner and
having her explain to us why they were getting nothing done. city and state moneys were lower
and the federal government that had always provided grants no longer did. This was under
Obummer.
The long strip mining of the US and the rest of the world by the elite should have made
itself completely obvious under trump but I am beginning to think that we humans are no more
than a plague upon the earth. We seem to be so intent on sticking to our team the Rs or Ds we
are no different then sports fans, who's obsessed behavior and willingness to spend thousands
to watch sports is mind boggling, when often the same people bitch about teachers pay.
Or during the healthcare debates I went to hear the town hall that my congressmen had. 2000
people showed up most screaming about Obama and free hand outs. The 2000 people where mostly
over 65, and in this case military so all these people had theirs but didn't think their own
kids or grandkids should have medical care.. what the hell! The Republican Party built the
montra of evil government well and the Democratic Party used it the build up the pentagon to
the point it takes over 70% of the discretionary budget, to slaughter people in 3rd world
countries so we can strip mine them or threaten Russia and China . The virus shows one thing
the elites have lots of money to build military stuff that they fleece , so what we have is
crap. What the poor soldiers in this country are is fodder for the wealthy.
lol. - Some partisans mount a partisan defense of Trump. I didn't know such incredibly
partisan dummies read MoA. You guys are more than welcome to leave.
Thinking about the Covid-19, it occurred to me that the governments of the UK, the USA, of
Canada and probably many other countries that have had biological warfare labs have all said
to their people "We have to do this research because the USSR, the Russians The Chinese, The
North Koreans or thr Terrorists may use biological/chemical weapons against us and WE MUST BE
PREPARED!!. If they were telling the truth they should have been well prepared as they have
spent billions on this research. So, now we can see they were lying because, THERE WAS NO
PREPARATION WHEN IT WAS NEEDED? Precisely NONE!
Come this epidemic and what do we see? What we see is that at least the UK government, the US
government and the Canadian government were lying. It is quite clear that they were NOT
expecting to be attacked. How do I know they were not expecting to be attacked? They had NO
stores of hand sanitizer, NO stores of masks, NO goggles, NO stores of PPE, No factories for
making any of them. NO troops of Bio/Chem warfare soldiers ready to spring into action and NO
PLANS, as far as I can see. Are we to assume that if they were attacked by, say, the
Russians, they were going to rely on the Chinese to supply them? (Sarcasm!)
The Chinese government which may or may not be developing biological weapons, (I have no
way of knowing) obviously, was relatively well prepared. This is hardly surprising; as they
think they have been under biological attack, on and off since the Korean war when they were
so attacked. They had factories making the kit they needed and it took only days to ramp up
production and get other factories to join in. They had medical troops who were trained and
ready to take an important part in controlling the outbreak. They had plans that enabled them
to build hospitals for mass intensive care in a matter of days and (I would imagine) plans to
turn other structures into holding areas for less serious cases. It also looks as though they
had either very versatile organizers or well laid plans for feeding and monitoring people
under lock down.
You may understandably reject criticism to Your chosen party of faith, but i believe the
essence of his message was not about partisanship, rather an honest appraisal of the current
sad state of affairs, which, if you had bothered reading further, was just as scathing about
Obama et al. as it was about your beloved Stable Genius.
I'm afraid your choice to not read further was a far stronger statement of partisanship
than anything the author laid out. Your loss, and ours too.
Yep, exactly. What they have is the CCP, an army that can be called on command, which
thinks it's job is to govern, not just get paid extra. And legitimacy, the Chinese people
accept their governing, mostly, because they try to do a good job. It's like all this unity
bullshit they feed us here (see above), but it's real.
Lol. Trump has under 4 years working for the federal gov. It isn't his system. It is the
typical repugs and dingbats system. He is an idiot for leaving his cushy life to join these
idiots. It certainly doesn't speak well of his judgement. The people who work there and the
people he has hired... Pompeo, Bolton, Esper, etc have worked there for decades. Bolton is an
especially rotten character that seems to just keep popping up.
If Trump did win another term
I wouldnt be surprised to see him back. Remember when that nutjob from Israel that delights
in murdering defenseless people came over and gave a speech to Congress? He received an
enthusiastic standing ovation. What more needs to be investigated or discussed? It needs to
fail and the people will have to suffer in order for more responsible leadership to
emerge. The US has waged war on the people of Iraq for 30 fucking years.
Everytime the system
is about to collapse from its own corruption they just create more money and threaten other
countries with destruction if they attempt to divorce themselves from the IMF "global"
economy. The idea that the empire exists to help the average citizen is insane and rather
childish thinking. The empire exists to maintain power, control, and a dominant position. By
the way... during all this crazyness has anybody bothered to follow what is going on with
US/China trade? There was a much publicized 1st stage agreement over the easy issues but CNN
warned it might collapse putting the global economy at severe risk. Has the US lost billions
of dollars worth of economic inputs the last couple months? What is the USA going to look
like if that continues? Without China propping up the US economy the US will have to rely on
its own resources. As you mention the US cant produce N95 masks let alone coronavirus test
kits. Testing might allow the powers that be to not feel frightened about coming into contact
with the drooling masses. They might let us out of our cages so we can start foraging for
food.
Your real objection to this, extremely reasonable, statement:
" ...They even corrupted the Center for Disease Control. Its leaders, evidently eager to
curry favor with the madman in the Oval Office, gave its stamp of approval to the unproven
– and dangerous drug HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE that Trump's been promoting as the Silver
Bullet to cure Covid-19. (April 4-6) Luckily, saner heads prevailed, or a conscience was
pricked, and these panting spaniels withdrew the recommendation from their website..."
It is an indication of your general irresponsibility, also exemplified in your casual use
of the internet to give, potentially dangerous, medical advice, that you pretend to be
dissenting from Brenner because he critiques government. You imply that by doing so he is
urging people to support one or other political party. In fact his is a comprehensive
critique of the entire political system, whose purpose, for 230+ years has been to prevent
the people from governing themselves.
It is a pity to see those tireless and sincere campaigners the Yellow Vests of France drafted
into an argument for apathy and defeatism.
thanks michael... i can apply some of these ideas directly to other countries.. i don't care
for the usa centric world point view, but i am sure many readers will get into it.. i would
like to emphasize a key point you make - accountability, and how there is none.. that to me
is the number uno issue in the world today and it is very stark with regard to the usa -
accountability... of course obama kicked that concept down the road too... no
accountability.. it sucks big time.. we need it desperately...
Okay... he's not a psychoapath, Don. I'll settle malignant sociopathic narcissist, which
means by definition and demonstration that he would not know empathy were it to leap up and
smack him in the face. Liar? We can soften that too. He is a serial fantasists living in the
worlds he creates and like a spoiled child demands, raging when his wishes are not instantly
gratified.
His dictatorial moments would be familiar to anyone who ever worked at his jumped
up mom 'n pop real estate shop. His blustering, bullying, blaming, bragging, bloviating, and
berating are on display each day now at the late afternoon campaign commercial
live-from-the-White-House. He's all yours Don.
When I was young I was always looking up for US, don't know why, maybe I have been fascinated
by a culture, lifestyle, innovations.. when I got older and started to read about what
actually happens in the world, I realized that US is not what it seemed to be anymore and I
think its just getting worse..
Im not speaking about regular people, of course not, they have
worries, goes thru hardships in life, same as me here in Europe.. Basically, no matter if is
there Trump, Obama, Bush, Biden, Hillary or Easter Bunny.. your government to its core is
really sick..
Everytime i read about decision US made, how is profit driven at expense of
regular people, its a disgrace.. and more and more people in the world can see it.. just
Trump himself exposed more the whole thing, chaotic, selfish, rude and arrogant government,
not ashamed of anything.
I wish you all.. you good and smart people of the US, to win this struggle, get back on
track and have a better future, god bless you in your fight.
The USA government was paralyzed by Ukrainegate and impeachment in January.
Notable quotes:
"... Another factor was that any real measures against the virus were a huge blow to the neoliberal globalization and the USA as the central force that pushed neoliberal globalization was vary to implement them. ..."
"... Pentagon treatment of the USS Theodor Roosevelt epidemic was worse than incompetent because clearly, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Instead of looking into the core problem, they decided to find a scapegoat. Why they did not react as soon as problems on Diamond Princess surfaced are unclear to me. They failed even to provide masks. That's simply incredible. I think a bunch of perfumed princes of Pentagon needs to be fired. I wonder what is the situation on submarines. ..."
The WHO provided validated working test kits on 16th of January.
Even if I am not happy with the Chinese policy overall, the main problem in most advanced
western countries was and still is that the response of the governments are often poor:
Not implementing a coherent communication strategy. It does not make sense when one
minister tells that the virus situation is an real issue and another minister tell you at
the same time that everything is not so bad.
Downplaying the infection numbers for domestical political reasons. Complete lack of
understanding of an exponential function or more precise the combination of an virus
operating on an exponential function, while the own resources are more or less a
constant.
Too late start of testing, be it a result of faulty administrative structures, rooky
mistakes during test kit development or combination of both.
Fighting a virus is like warfare on the operational level, you start with incomplete
information, but have to make important decisions, time is a very important resource, lost
time is almost impossible to regain.
Fighting a virus is like warfare on the operational level, you start with incomplete
information, but have to make important decisions, time is a very important resource, lost
time is almost impossible to regain.
Very true. But we should not forget the role of Pelosi in this mess: Trump administration was
partially paralyzed in January by impeachment proceedings. She acted like the fifth column in
this respect.
Another factor was that any real measures against the virus were a huge blow to the
neoliberal globalization and the USA as the central force that pushed neoliberal
globalization was vary to implement them.
IMHO, Trump demonstrated some level of courage by closing flights from China on Jan 31. I
guess pressure to postpone this measure further was tremendous. But they missed the time, and
it was too late.
3) Too late start of testing, be it a result of faulty administrative structures, rooky
mistakes during test kit development, or a combination of both.
That's true, and the CDC needs to be investigated for this blunder. But also implementing
social distancing measures and the obligatory wearing of masks in large cities was completely
botched.
Retired persons can be quarantined without a major blow to the economy. And that should
have been done first. The nursing homes are starkly vulnerable to the coronavirus. It was
clear from the beginning. That means that the medical personnel in them need to be provided
with full protection gear and isolated with patients. That was not done. On the contrary,
they became hotspots that spread the disease.
Treatment of medical personnel, who along with patients in nursing homes are the most
vulnerable category, was abysmal. No free hotel stay (for those without children), no special
transportation and free meals were provided for them. Even basic protection equipment was
absent in home hospitals until late March.
The USA did not have strategic storage of masks and, which is more important, equipment to
make them and materials from which they are made. That was a big blunder for which previous
administrations also share responsibility.
Pentagon treatment of the USS Theodor Roosevelt epidemic was worse than incompetent
because clearly, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Instead of looking into the core
problem, they decided to find a scapegoat. Why they did not react as soon as problems on
Diamond Princess surfaced are unclear to me. They failed even to provide masks. That's simply
incredible. I think a bunch of perfumed princes of Pentagon needs to be fired. I wonder what
is the situation on submarines.
No church on Easter for the faithful. The illuminati must feel like they are in heaven.
Their goal of achieving a godless society is in reach. Well, not exactly godless since they
think the elites among them have a mission to become like God, as man was made in Gods image
for the purpose of knowing himself through man. We shall all worship God, which are our
elites, and the priests of this Man-God religion are technocratic scientists. Some call it
scientism or gnosticism or transhumanism
The idea is to transhumanistly "upgrade" humanity, create an Internet of Us, and to
geocybernically control the processes of the earth system (this is known as the Fourth
Industrial Revolution 4IR)
Capitalism. How strange so many here recognize the evils of Bad capitalism, more properly
defined as Monopoly Capitalism, or Neoliberalism to distinguish it from good Capitalism
-which is competitive capitalism well regulated in the interests of society as a whole, with
a dash of socialism and monopoly (state or private) capitalism in certain industries as
needed.
When we talk of Bad Capitalism of the sort Marx no doubt had in mind, we must look back
and recall something Marx never envisioned, perhaps because it was a reaction to the
globalist socialist theories he espoused. That was Mussolini's and then later Hitlers
National Socialism, or economic Fascism. This was more accurately defined as a public private
partnership (P3) that is so often referred to by the Gates funded WOrld Economic Forum and
those talking about UN Sustainable Development Projects, and has become a religion of sorts
in the West and also in China (more about that in a separate comment when I have time) and is
really the essence of todays neoliberalism (not the propaganda you read about neoliberalism
from its supporters)
Back in the 30's Mussolini's economic fascism was greatly admired by the Capitalists of
that day, even FDR who has been mislabelled as socialist and anti-capitalist despite coming
from the financial elite (much like Trump who is mislabelled as nationalist snd
antiestablishment despite being a globalist and financial elite in private life).
Indeed just before and after Hitler took over in Germany with his partnership with German
companies - the Capitalists in the US and UK/France rushed in via cartel agreements with
German companies to invest and transfer technology. FDR did little to stop this.
FDR if we recall was the father of NRA which was his first priority after confiscating the
peoples gold and devaluing the dollar. Fortunately his fascist NRA economy was struck down by
the Supreme Court only to later reemerge during WWII. This is when P3 really crystallized in
the US although it would take decades to morph into todays beast, and required another Pearl
Harbor to gain acceptance for the purpose of keeping us safe from Islamic Terrorism and now
the virus terrorists
One might argue that the difference between Mussolini's and Hitlers P3 and today is the
government was the dominant power then, and today its at best an equal partner or more likely
dominated by the corporate side (in China the private ownership is largely in the hands of
the party elite as individuals and not the state which serves to subsidize their enterprises
while socializing losses and privatizing profits-like the West) . Those in government, after
public retirement go on to lucrative employment on the private side as their reward.
Regulatory agencies are all captured by the private side of this public private
partnership
This is apparent in many industries. Many of you see it with Military, intelligence and
homeland security, Big Tech/Data, finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE), etc.
However, when it comes to Medical -Pharma Industry and other "science" based industries
like the Climate Industry you are blinded by scientism promoted by the MSM spinmeisters
supporting the Green-Virus Globalist Agenda. Yet both of these industries are driven by
Public Private Partnerships to achieve Global Capitalist and Global Government Control
objectives.
As Eisenhower said in his 1961 exit speech where he warned of the dangers of the MIC he
also said "we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could
itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
So looking specifically at the actors involved in the latest Pandemic, and one sees many
of them are the same players behind the Climate Terror Industry, one sees a tremendous amount
of collaboration between Big Pharma, UN agencies, national health agencies, military,
academia and tax free philanthropic foundations (Gates, Rockefeller, etc).
Government funds basic science via military and health/science agencies to search for new
viruses or enhancing known viruses with gain of function research, that Big Pharma then
exploits to develop vaccines with government and philanthropic funds in the event such
viruses are released. All kinds of money gets spent in preparing for a pandemic, stockpiling
supplies , medicines, vaccines in advance of a pandemic, studying ways to control people once
a pandemic arrives, and studying more ways to control people to prevent another pandemic
(digital id, health certificates, mandatory vaccines) . When a pandemic does arrive, all
those exercises and simulations (Crimson Orange, Event 201, Dark Winter, etc) pay off,
trillions of dollars are unleashed out of thin air thanks to the Fed Reserve and handed out
to the private partners.
Disaster Capitalism at its finest, public private partnership working toward total control
of people and earning plenty of money while doing so. Companies having nothing to do with the
Pandemic but affected (Airlines, hotels) , some of which are already in trouble (Boeing) are
bailed out. Small business owners get crushed.
Trump failed to respond. But in January and February, it was clear coronavirus would hit
NY. Cuomo and de Blasio could have instituted full lockdowns by early March when first cases
appeared. Meanwhile, Washington State and California moved more quickly and saved many
lives.
Countless other state governors didn't close things down as quickly as Newsom in California
and other governors. Florida let spring break go one and once finished no state put kids in
quarantine. The blame for this response falls on many shoulders. And the lack of response is
hiding the biggest transfer of wealth in history. Not here of course. As usual the blue blog
has been on top of most issues and way ahead of others.
I'm very concerned about how this country will look once it's open again. I think it's going
to be unrecognizable because of how many businesses will have permanently closed down and how
many people will stay unemployed. Lots of businesses are going to be bought out at Fire sale
prices by those who got all the money. Like usual. Workers desperate for a job might have to
take less than minimum wage cuz of the demand for jobs. But whoboy congress better be thinking
about that or they will be in for a big surprise. OWS will look like just a warmup for what
might be coming.
Hospitals have been closed down for decades or been asset stripped after they were bought
out by hedge funds. Obama and Biden didn't replenish the supplies for epidemics after they
dealt with the H1N1 flu. Blame goes to both parties and especially their embrace of
neoliberalism.
He's thinking of reopening the country. Hardily and bigly.
"I don't know that I've had a bigger decision. But I'm going to surround myself with the
greatest minds. Not only the greatest minds, but the greatest minds in numerous different
businesses, including the business of politics and reason," Trump told reporters.
Trump's labor leader doesn't want people to get used to being on government assistance and
is trying to restrict who can get unemployment benefits and for how long. Now it takes brass
balls for little Anthony Scalia to say that to desperate people after the corrupt and
especially the banks have gotten trillions! This guy should be embarrassed to show his face in
public ever again. But he isn't.
up 25 users have voted. --
"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!"
@snoopydawg They
decided to go with their own unnecessarily complex kit instead of going with the Qiagen kit
or some variant (RT-PCR is a pretty routine procedure in labs). They initially stuck with the
influenza model of having the samples sent to Atlanta for analysis. This is fine if you are
just monitoring the flu, but useless for trying to stop a pandemic. Tens of thousands of
people in the US have died and will die unnecessarily.
but he isn't the only one solely responsible for how many people have gotten sick and
have died.
Trump failed to respond. But in January and February, it was clear coronavirus would
hit NY. Cuomo and de Blasio could have instituted full lockdowns by early March when
first cases appeared. Meanwhile, Washington State and California moved more quickly and
saved many lives.
Countless other state governors didn't close things down as quickly as Newsom in
California and other governors. Florida let spring break go one and once finished no
state put kids in quarantine. The blame for this response falls on many shoulders. And
the lack of response is hiding the biggest transfer of wealth in history. Not here of
course. As usual the blue blog has been on top of most issues and way ahead of
others.
I'm very concerned about how this country will look once it's open again. I think it's
going to be unrecognizable because of how many businesses will have permanently closed
down and how many people will stay unemployed. Lots of businesses are going to be bought
out at Fire sale prices by those who got all the money. Like usual. Workers desperate for
a job might have to take less than minimum wage cuz of the demand for jobs. But whoboy
congress better be thinking about that or they will be in for a big surprise. OWS will
look like just a warmup for what might be coming.
Hospitals have been closed down for decades or been asset stripped after they were
bought out by hedge funds. Obama and Biden didn't replenish the supplies for epidemics
after they dealt with the H1N1 flu. Blame goes to both parties and especially their
embrace of neoliberalism.
He's thinking of reopening the country. Hardily and bigly.
"I don't know that I've had a bigger decision. But I'm going to surround myself with
the greatest minds. Not only the greatest minds, but the greatest minds in numerous
different businesses, including the business of politics and reason," Trump told
reporters.
Trump's labor leader doesn't want people to get used to being on government assistance
and is trying to restrict who can get unemployment benefits and for how long. Now it
takes brass balls for little Anthony Scalia to say that to desperate people after the
corrupt and especially the banks have gotten trillions! This guy should be embarrassed to
show his face in public ever again. But he isn't.
This is a case study of bureaucratic incompetence, when conflicting institutions and agenda paralyze any efforts. Trump
incompetence is only the tip of the iceberg. the whole Deep State proved to be too rigid to properly react to the epidemic, because
each measure looked too drastic until it was late to implement it. and then it was implemented anyway. One effect of any large
bureaucracy is that rare oasises of reliable and timely information that exist are to be suppressed. and this is not
Trump fault. This is iron logic of any large bureaucracy.
What is interesting is that the epidemic is localized in few hot spots with the largest being New York metropolitan areas. So
governments could took measures immediately even without federal government prompting them. And that would be much better that
nationwide shutdown. And FBI and CIA have the local governments in pocket anyway (this is a national security state, not something
else after all). So where was the CIA boss when we
needed her ? Or she is just capable of running Russiagate gaslighting operation type of operations? CIA honchos used to have
audacity to launch the efforts to depose Trump. Can we believe that they can't bypass Trump when they need to?
Notable quotes:
"... The National Security Council office responsible for tracking pandemics received intelligence reports in early January predicting the spread of the virus to the United States, and within weeks was raising options like keeping Americans home from work and shutting down cities the size of Chicago. Mr. Trump would avoid such steps until March. ..."
"... Despite Mr. Trump's denial weeks later, he was told at the time about a Jan. 29 memo produced by his trade adviser, Peter Navarro, laying out in striking detail the potential risks of a coronavirus pandemic: as many as half a million deaths and trillions of dollars in economic losses. ..."
"... By the last week of February, it was clear to the administration's public health team that schools and businesses in hot spots would have to close. But in the turbulence of the Trump White House, it took three more weeks to persuade the president that failure to act quickly to control the spread of the virus would have dire consequences. ..."
"... It was becoming apparent that the administration had botched the rollout of testing to track the virus at home, and a smaller-scale surveillance program intended to piggyback on a federal flu tracking system had also been stillborn. ..."
"... A 20-year-old Chinese woman had infected five relatives with the virus even though she never displayed any symptoms herself. The implication was grave -- apparently healthy people could be unknowingly spreading the virus -- and supported the need to move quickly to mitigation. ..."
"... These final days of February, perhaps more than any other moment during his tenure in the White House, illustrated Mr. Trump's inability or unwillingness to absorb warnings coming at him. He instead reverted to his traditional political playbook in the midst of a public health calamity, squandering vital time as the coronavirus spread silently across the country. ..."
"... Over nearly three weeks from Feb. 26 to March 16, the number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the United States grew from 15 to 4,226. ..."
"... The earliest warnings about coronavirus got caught in the crosscurrents of the administration's internal disputes over China. It was the China hawks who pushed earliest for a travel ban. But their animosity toward China also undercut hopes for a more cooperative approach by the world's two leading powers to a global crisis. ..."
An examination reveals the president was warned about the
potential for a pandemic but that internal divisions, lack of planning and his faith in his own instincts led
to a halting response.
"Nobody knew there would be a pandemic or epidemic
of this proportion," President Trump said last month. He has repeatedly said that no one could have seen
the effects of the coronavirus coming.
Credit...
Erin
Schaff/The
WASHINGTON -- "Any way you cut it, this is going to be bad," a senior medical
adviser at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Dr. Carter Mecher, wrote on the night of Jan. 28, in an email
to a group of public health experts scattered around the government and universities. "The projected size of
the outbreak already seems hard to believe."
A week after the
first coronavirus
case had been identified in the United States, and six long weeks before President
Trump finally took aggressive action to confront the danger the nation was facing -- a pandemic that is now
forecast to take tens of thousands of American lives -- Dr. Mecher was urging the upper ranks of the nation's
public health bureaucracy to wake up and prepare for the possibility of far more drastic action.
His was hardly a lone voice. Throughout January, as Mr. Trump repeatedly
played down the seriousness of the virus and focused on other issues, an array of figures inside his
government -- from top White House advisers to experts deep in the cabinet departments and intelligence
agencies -- identified the threat, sounded alarms and made clear the need for aggressive action.
The president, though, was slow to absorb the scale of the risk and to act
accordingly, focusing instead on controlling the message, protecting gains in the economy and batting away
warnings from senior officials. It was a problem, he said, that had come out of nowhere and could not have
been foreseen.
Even after Mr. Trump took his first concrete action at the end of January --
limiting travel from China
-- public health often had to compete with economic and political
considerations in internal debates, slowing the path toward belated decisions to seek more money from
Congress, obtain necessary supplies, address shortfalls in testing and ultimately move to keep much of the
nation at home.
Unfolding as it did in the wake of his impeachment by the House and in the
midst of his Senate trial, Mr. Trump's response was colored by his suspicion of and disdain for what he
viewed as the "Deep State" -- the very people in his government whose expertise and long experience might
have guided him more quickly toward steps that would slow the virus, and likely save lives.
Decision-making was also complicated by a long-running dispute inside the
administration over how to deal with China. The virus at first took a back seat to a desire not to upset
Beijing during trade talks, but later the impulse to score points against Beijing left the world's two
leading powers further divided as they confronted one of the first truly global threats of the 21st century.
The shortcomings of Mr. Trump's performance have played out with remarkable
transparency as part of his daily effort to dominate television screens and the national conversation.
But dozens of interviews with current and former officials and a review of
emails and other records revealed many previously unreported details and a fuller picture of the roots and
extent of his halting response as the deadly virus spread:
The National Security Council office responsible for tracking pandemics
received intelligence reports in early January predicting the spread of the virus to the United States,
and within weeks was raising options like keeping Americans home from work and shutting down cities the
size of Chicago. Mr. Trump would avoid such steps until March.
Despite Mr. Trump's
denial
weeks later, he was told at the time about a Jan. 29
memo
produced by his trade adviser, Peter Navarro, laying out in striking detail the potential risks
of a coronavirus pandemic: as many as half a million deaths and trillions of dollars in economic losses.
The health and human services secretary, Alex M. Azar II, directly warned
Mr. Trump of the possibility of a pandemic during a call on Jan. 30, the second warning he delivered to
the president about the virus in two weeks. The president, who was on Air Force One while traveling for
appearances in the Midwest, responded that Mr. Azar was being alarmist.
Mr. Azar publicly
announced
in February that the government was establishing a "surveillance" system in five American
cities to measure the spread of the virus and enable experts to project the next hot spots. It was
delayed for weeks. The slow start of that plan, on top of the well-documented
failures to develop the nation's testing capacity
, left administration officials with almost no
insight into how rapidly the virus was spreading. "We were flying the plane with no instruments," one
official said.
By the third week in February, the administration's top public health
experts concluded they should recommend to Mr. Trump a new approach that would include warning the
American people of the risks and urging steps like social distancing and staying home from work. But the
White House focused instead on messaging and crucial additional weeks went by before their views were
reluctantly accepted by the president -- time when the virus spread largely unimpeded.
When Mr. Trump finally
agreed in mid-March
to recommend social distancing across the country, effectively bringing much of the
economy to a halt, he seemed shellshocked and deflated to some of his closest associates. One described him
as "subdued" and "baffled" by how the crisis had played out. An economy that he had wagered his re-election
on was suddenly in shambles.
He only regained his swagger, the associate said, from conducting his daily
White House briefings, at which he often seeks to rewrite the history of the past several months. He
declared at one point that he
"felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic,"
and insisted at another that he had to be
a
"cheerleader for the country,"
as if that explained why he failed to prepare the public for what was
coming.
Mr. Trump's allies and some administration officials say the criticism has
been unfair. The Chinese government misled other governments, they say. And they insist that the president
was either not getting proper information, or the people around him weren't conveying the urgency of the
threat. In some cases, they argue, the specific officials he was hearing from had been discredited in his
eyes, but once the right information got to him through other channels, he made the right calls.
"While the media and Democrats refused to seriously acknowledge this virus in
January and February, President Trump took bold action to protect Americans and unleash the full power of
the federal government to curb the spread of the virus, expand testing capacities and expedite vaccine
development even when we had no true idea the level of transmission or asymptomatic spread," said Judd
Deere, a White House spokesman.
There were key turning points along the way, opportunities for Mr. Trump to
get ahead of the virus rather than just chase it. There were internal debates that presented him with stark
choices, and moments when he could have chosen to ask deeper questions and learn more. How he handled them
may shape his re-election campaign. They will certainly shape his legacy.
The Containment Illusion
By the last week of February, it was clear
to the administration's public health team that schools and businesses in hot spots would have to close. But
in the turbulence of the Trump White House, it took three more weeks to persuade the president that failure
to act quickly to control the spread of the virus would have dire consequences.
When Dr. Robert Kadlec, the top disaster response official at the Health and
Human Services Department, convened the White House coronavirus task force on Feb. 21, his agenda was
urgent. There were deep cracks in the administration's strategy for keeping the virus out of the United
States. They were going to have to lock down the country to prevent it from spreading. The question was:
When?
There had already been an
alarming spike in new cases
around the world and the virus was spreading across the Middle East. It was
becoming apparent that the administration had botched the rollout of testing to track the virus at home, and
a smaller-scale surveillance program intended to piggyback on a federal flu tracking system had also been
stillborn.
In Washington, the president was not worried,
predicting
that by April, "when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away." His White House had
yet to ask Congress for additional funding to prepare for the potential cost of wide-scale infection across
the country, and health care providers were growing increasingly nervous about the availability of masks,
ventilators and other equipment.
What Mr. Trump decided to do next could dramatically shape the course of the
pandemic -- and how many people would get sick and die.
With that in mind, the task force had gathered for a tabletop exercise -- a
real-time version of a full-scale war gaming of a flu pandemic the administration had run the previous year.
That earlier exercise
, also conducted by Mr. Kadlec and called "Crimson Contagion,"
predicted 110 million infections
, 7.7 million hospitalizations and 586,000 deaths following a
hypothetical outbreak that started in China.
Facing the likelihood of a real pandemic, the group needed to decide when to
abandon "containment" -- the effort to keep the virus outside the U.S. and to isolate anyone who gets
infected -- and embrace "mitigation" to thwart the spread of the virus inside the country until a vaccine
becomes available.
Among the questions on the agenda, which was reviewed by The New York Times,
was when the department's secretary, Mr. Azar, should recommend that Mr. Trump take textbook mitigation
measures "such as school dismissals and cancellations of mass gatherings," which had been identified as the
next appropriate step in
a Bush-era pandemic plan
.
The exercise was sobering. The group -- including Dr. Anthony S. Fauci of the
National Institutes of Health; Dr. Robert R. Redfield of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
Mr. Azar, who at that stage was leading the White House Task Force -- concluded they would soon need to move
toward aggressive social distancing, even at the risk of severe disruption to the nation's economy and the
daily lives of millions of Americans.
If Dr. Kadlec had any doubts, they were erased two days later, when he
stumbled upon an email from a researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who was among the group of
academics, government physicians and infectious diseases doctors who had spent weeks tracking the outbreak
in the Red Dawn email chain.
A 20-year-old Chinese woman had infected five relatives with the virus even
though she never displayed any symptoms herself. The implication was grave -- apparently healthy people could
be unknowingly spreading the virus -- and supported the need to move quickly to mitigation.
"Is this true?!" Dr. Kadlec wrote back to the researcher. "If so we have a
huge whole on our screening and quarantine effort," including a typo where he meant hole. Her response was
blunt: "People are carrying the virus everywhere."
The following day, Dr. Kadlec and the others decided to present Mr. Trump
with a plan titled "Four Steps to Mitigation," telling the president that they needed to begin preparing
Americans for a step rarely taken in United States history.
But over the next several days, a presidential blowup and internal turf
fights would sidetrack such a move. The focus would shift to messaging and confident predictions of success
rather than publicly calling for a shift to mitigation.
These final days of February, perhaps more than any other moment during his
tenure in the White House, illustrated Mr. Trump's inability or unwillingness to absorb warnings coming at
him. He instead reverted to his traditional political playbook in the midst of a public health calamity,
squandering vital time as the coronavirus spread silently across the country.
Dr. Kadlec's group wanted to meet with the president right away, but Mr.
Trump was on a trip to India, so they agreed to make the case to him in person as soon as he returned two
days later. If they could convince him of the need to shift strategy, they could immediately begin a
national education campaign aimed at preparing the public for the new reality.
A memo dated Feb. 14, prepared in coordination with the National Security
Council and titled "U.S. Government Response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus," documented what more drastic
measures would look like, including: "significantly limiting public gatherings and cancellation of almost
all sporting events, performances, and public and private meetings that cannot be convened by phone.
Consider school closures. Widespread 'stay at home' directives from public and private organizations with
nearly 100% telework for some."
The memo did not advocate an immediate national shutdown, but said the
targeted use of "quarantine and isolation measures" could be used to slow the spread in places where
"sustained human-to-human transmission" is evident.
Within 24 hours, before they got a chance to make their presentation to the
president, the plan went awry.
Mr. Trump was walking up the steps of Air Force One to head home from India
on Feb. 25 when Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory
Diseases,
publicly issued
the blunt warning they had all agreed was necessary.
But Dr. Messonnier had jumped the gun. They had not told the president yet,
much less gotten his consent.
On the 18-hour plane ride home, Mr. Trump fumed as he watched the
stock market crash
after Dr. Messonnier's comments. Furious, he called Mr. Azar when he landed at around
6 a.m. on Feb. 26, raging that Dr. Messonnier had scared people unnecessarily. Already on thin ice with the
president over a variety of issues and having overseen the failure to quickly produce an effective and
widely available test, Mr. Azar would soon find his authority reduced.
The meeting that evening with Mr. Trump to advocate social distancing was
canceled, replaced by a news conference in which the president announced that the White House response would
be put under the command of Vice President Mike Pence.
The push to convince Mr. Trump of the need for more assertive action stalled.
With Mr. Pence and his staff in charge, the focus was clear: no more alarmist messages. Statements and media
appearances by health officials like Dr. Fauci and Dr. Redfield would be coordinated through Mr. Pence's
office. It would be more than three weeks before Mr. Trump would announce serious social distancing efforts,
a lost period during which the spread of the virus accelerated rapidly.
Over nearly three weeks from Feb. 26 to March 16, the number of
confirmed coronavirus cases
in the United States grew from
15
to 4,226. Since then, nearly half a million Americans have tested positive for the virus and
authorities say hundreds of thousands more are likely infected. The China Factor
The earliest warnings about coronavirus got
caught in the crosscurrents of the administration's internal disputes over China. It was the China hawks who
pushed earliest for a travel ban. But their animosity toward China also undercut hopes for a more
cooperative approach by the world's two leading powers to a global crisis.
It was early January, and the call with a Hong Kong epidemiologist left
Matthew Pottinger rattled.
Mr. Pottinger, the deputy national security adviser and a hawk on China, took
a blunt warning away from the call with the doctor, a longtime friend: A ferocious, new outbreak that on the
surface appeared similar to the
SARS epidemic of 2003
had emerged in China. It had spread far more quickly than the government was
admitting to, and it wouldn't be long before it reached other parts of the world.
Mr. Pottinger had worked as a Wall Street Journal correspondent in Hong Kong
during the SARS epidemic, and was still scarred by his experience documenting the death spread by that
highly contagious virus.
Now, seventeen years later, his friend had a blunt message: You need to be
ready. The virus, he warned, which originated in the city of Wuhan, was being transmitted by people who were
showing no symptoms -- an insight that American health officials had not yet accepted. Mr. Pottinger declined
through a spokesman to comment.
It was one of the earliest warnings to the White House, and it echoed the
intelligence reports making their way to the National Security Council. While most of the early assessments
from the C.I.A. had little more information than was available publicly, some of the more specialized
corners of the intelligence world were producing sophisticated and chilling warnings.
In a report to the director of national intelligence, the State Department's
epidemiologist wrote in early January that the virus was likely to spread across the globe, and warned that
the coronavirus could develop into a pandemic. Working independently, a small outpost of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, the National Center for Medical Intelligence, came to the same conclusion. Within weeks
after getting initial information about the virus early in the year, biodefense experts inside the National
Security Council, looking at what was happening in Wuhan, started urging officials to think about what would
be needed to quarantine a city the size of Chicago.
By mid-January there was growing evidence of the virus spreading outside
China. Mr. Pottinger began convening daily meetings about the coronavirus. He alerted his boss, Robert C.
O'Brien, the national security adviser.
The early alarms sounded by Mr. Pottinger and other China hawks were
freighted with ideology -- including a push to publicly blame China that critics in the administration say
was a distraction as the coronavirus spread to Western Europe and eventually the United States.
And they ran into opposition from Mr. Trump's economic advisers, who worried
a tough approach toward China could scuttle a trade deal that was a pillar of Mr. Trump's re-election
campaign.
With his skeptical -- some might even say conspiratorial -- view of China's
ruling Communist Party, Mr. Pottinger initially suspected that President Xi Jinping's government was keeping
a dark secret: that the virus may have originated in one of the laboratories in Wuhan studying deadly
pathogens. In his view, it might have even been a deadly accident unleashed on an unsuspecting Chinese
population.
During meetings and telephone calls, Mr. Pottinger asked intelligence
agencies -- including officers at the C.I.A. working on Asia and on weapons of mass destruction -- to search
for evidence that might bolster his theory.
They didn't have any evidence. Intelligence agencies did not detect any alarm
inside the Chinese government that analysts presumed would accompany the accidental leak of a deadly virus
from a government laboratory. But Mr. Pottinger continued to believe the coronavirus problem was far worse
than the Chinese were acknowledging. Inside the West Wing, the director of the Domestic Policy Council, Joe
Grogan, also tried to sound alarms that the threat from China was growing.
Mr. Pottinger, backed by Mr. O'Brien, became one of the driving forces of a
campaign in the final weeks of January to convince Mr. Trump to impose limits on travel from China -- the
first substantive step taken to impede the spread of the virus and one that the president has repeatedly
cited as evidence that he was on top of the problem.
In addition to the opposition from the economic team, Mr. Pottinger and his
allies among the China hawks had to overcome initial skepticism from the administration's public health
experts.
Travel restrictions were usually counterproductive to managing biological
outbreaks because they prevented doctors and other much-needed medical help from easily getting to the
affected areas, the health officials said. And such bans often cause infected people to flee, spreading the
disease further.
But on the morning of Jan. 30, Mr. Azar got a call from Dr. Fauci, Dr.
Redfield and others saying they had changed their minds. The World Health Organization had
declared a global public health emergency
and American officials had discovered the
first confirmed case
of person-to-person transmission inside the United States.
The economic team, led by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, continued to
argue that there were big risks in taking a provocative step toward China and moving to curb global travel.
After a debate, Mr. Trump came down on the side of the hawks and the public health team. The limits on
travel from China were publicly
announced on Jan. 31
.
Still, Mr. Trump and other senior officials were wary of further upsetting
Beijing. Besides the concerns about the impact on the trade deal, they knew that an escalating confrontation
was risky because the United States relies heavily on China for pharmaceuticals and the kinds of protective
equipment most needed to combat the coronavirus.
But the hawks kept pushing in February to take a critical stance toward China
amid the growing crisis. Mr. Pottinger and others -- including aides to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo --
pressed for government statements to use the term "Wuhan Virus."
Mr. Pompeo tried to hammer the anti-China message at every turn, eventually
even urging leaders of the Group of 7 industrialized countries to use "Wuhan virus" in a joint statement.
Others, including aides to
Mr.
Pence, resisted taking a hard public line, believing that angering Beijing might lead the Chinese government
to withhold medical supplies, pharmaceuticals and any scientific research that might ultimately lead to a
vaccine.
Mr. Trump took a conciliatory approach through the middle of March, praising
the job Mr. Xi was doing.
That changed abruptly, when aides informed Mr. Trump that a Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokesman had publicly spun a new conspiracy about the origins of Covid-19: that it was brought to
China by U.S. Army personnel who visited the country last October.
Mr. Trump was furious, and he took to his favorite platform to broadcast a
new message. On March 16, he
wrote on Twitter
that "the United States will be powerfully supporting those industries, like Airlines
and others, that are particularly affected by the Chinese Virus."
Mr. Trump's decision to escalate the war of words undercut any remaining
possibility of broad cooperation between the governments to address a global threat. It remains to be seen
whether that mutual suspicion will spill over into efforts to develop treatments or vaccines, both areas
where the two nations are now competing.
One immediate result was a free-for-all across the United States, with state
and local governments and hospitals bidding on the open market for scarce but essential Chinese-made
products. When the state of Massachusetts managed to procure 1.2 million masks, it fell to the owner of the
New England Patriots, Robert K. Kraft, a Trump ally, to cut through extensive red tape on both sides of the
Pacific to
send his own plane to pick them up.
The Consequences of Chaos
The chaotic culture of the Trump White House
contributed to the crisis. A lack of planning and a failure to execute, combined with the president's focus
on the news cycle and his preference for following his gut rather than the data cost time, and perhaps
lives.
Inside the West Wing, Mr. Navarro, Mr. Trump's trade adviser, was widely seen
as quick-tempered, self-important and prone to butting in. He is among the most outspoken of China hawks and
in late January was clashing with the administration's health experts over limiting travel from China.
So it elicited eye rolls when, after initially being prevented from joining
the coronavirus task force, he circulated a
memo on Jan. 29
urging Mr. Trump to impose the travel limits, arguing that failing to confront the
outbreak aggressively could be catastrophic, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of
dollars in economic losses.
The uninvited message could not have conflicted more with the president's
approach at the time of playing down the severity of the threat. And when aides raised it with Mr. Trump, he
responded that he was unhappy that Mr. Navarro had put his warning in writing.
From the time the virus was first identified as a concern, the
administration's response was plagued by the rivalries and factionalism that routinely swirl around Mr.
Trump and, along with the president's impulsiveness, undercut decision making and policy development.
Faced with the relentless march of a deadly pathogen, the disagreements and a
lack of long-term planning had significant consequences. They slowed the president's response and resulted
in problems with execution and planning, including delays in seeking money from Capitol Hill and a failure
to begin broad surveillance testing.
Even after Mr. Azar first briefed him about the potential seriousness of the
virus during a phone call on Jan. 18 while the president
was at his
Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Mr. Trump projected confidence that it would be a passing
problem.
"We have it totally under control,"
he told an interviewer
a few days later while attending the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. "It's
going to be just fine."
Back in Washington, voices outside of the White House peppered Mr. Trump with
competing assessments about what he should do and how quickly he should act.
The efforts to sort out policy behind closed doors were contentious and
sometimes only loosely organized.
That was the case when the National Security Council convened a meeting on
short notice on the afternoon of Jan. 27. The Situation Room was standing room only, packed with top White
House advisers, low-level staffers, Mr. Trump's social media guru, and several cabinet secretaries. There
was no checklist about the preparations for a possible pandemic, which would require intensive testing,
rapid acquisition of protective gear, and perhaps serious limitations on Americans' movements.
Instead, after a 20-minute description by Mr. Azar of his department's
capabilities, the meeting was jolted when Stephen E. Biegun, the newly installed deputy secretary of state,
announced plans to issue a "
level
four
" travel warning, strongly discouraging Americans from traveling to China. The room erupted into
bickering.
A few days later, on the evening of Jan. 30, Mick Mulvaney, the acting White
House chief of staff at the time, and Mr. Azar called Air Force One as the president was making the final
decision to go ahead with the restrictions on China travel. Mr. Azar was blunt, warning that the virus could
develop into a pandemic and arguing that China should be criticized for failing to be transparent.
Mr. Trump rejected the idea of criticizing China, saying the country had
enough to deal with. And if the president's decision on the travel restrictions suggested that he fully
grasped the seriousness of the situation, his response to Mr. Azar indicated otherwise.
Stop panicking, Mr. Trump told him.
That sentiment was present throughout February, as the president's top aides
reached for a consistent message but took few concrete steps to prepare for the possibility of a major
public health crisis.
During a briefing on Capitol Hill on Feb. 5, senators urged administration
officials to take the threat more seriously. Several asked if the administration needed additional money to
help local and state health departments prepare.
Derek Kan, a senior official from the Office of Management and Budget,
replied that the administration had all the money it needed, at least at that point, to stop the virus, two
senators who attended the briefing said.
"Just left the Administration briefing on Coronavirus," Senator Christopher
S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, wrote in a
tweet
shortly after. "Bottom line: they aren't taking this seriously enough."
The administration also struggled to carry out plans it did agree on. In
mid-February, with the effort to roll out widespread testing stalled, Mr. Azar announced a plan to repurpose
a flu-surveillance system in five major cities to help track the virus among the general population. The
effort all but collapsed even before it got started as Mr. Azar
struggled to win approval
for $100 million in funding and the
C.D.C. failed to make reliable tests available
.
The number of infections in the United States started to surge through
February and early March, but the Trump administration did not move to place large-scale orders for masks
and other protective equipment, or critical hospital equipment, such as ventilators. The Pentagon
sat on standby
, awaiting any orders to help provide temporary hospitals or other assistance.
As February gave way to March, the president continued to be surrounded by
divided factions even as it became clearer that avoiding more aggressive steps was not tenable.
Mr. Trump had agreed to give an Oval Office address on the evening of March
11 announcing restrictions on travel from Europe, where the virus was ravaging Italy. But responding to the
views of his business friends and others, he continued to resist calls for social distancing, school
closures and other steps that would imperil the economy.
But the virus was already multiplying across the country -- and hospitals were
at risk of buckling under the looming wave of severely ill people, lacking masks and other protective
equipment, ventilators and sufficient intensive care beds. The question loomed over the president and his
aides after weeks of stalling and inaction: What were they going to do?
The approach that Mr. Azar and others had planned to bring to him weeks
earlier moved to the top of the agenda. Even then, and even by Trump White House standards, the debate over
whether to shut down much of the country to slow the spread was especially fierce.
Always attuned to anything that could trigger a stock market decline or an
economic slowdown that could hamper his re-election effort, Mr. Trump also reached out to prominent
investors like Stephen A. Schwarzman, the chief executive of Blackstone Group, a private equity firm.
"Everybody questioned it for a while, not everybody, but a good portion
questioned it," Mr. Trump said
earlier this month
. "They said, let's keep it open. Let's ride it."
In a tense Oval Office meeting, when Mr. Mnuchin again stressed that the
economy would be ravaged, Mr. O'Brien, the national security adviser, who had been worried about the virus
for weeks, sounded exasperated as he told Mr. Mnuchin that the economy would be destroyed regardless if
officials did nothing.
Soon after the Oval Office address, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former
commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and a trusted sounding board inside the White House,
visited Mr. Trump, partly at the urging of Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law. Dr. Gottlieb's role
was to impress upon the president how serious the crisis could become. Mr. Pence, by then in charge of the
task force, also played a key role at that point in getting through to the president about the seriousness
of the moment in a way that Mr. Azar had not.
But in the end, aides said, it was Dr. Deborah L. Birx, the veteran AIDS
researcher who had joined the task force, who
helped to
persuade Mr. Trump. Soft-spoken and fond of the kind of charts and graphs Mr. Trump prefers, Dr. Birx did
not have the rough edges that could irritate the president. He often told people he thought she was elegant.
On Monday, March 16, Mr. Trump
announced new social distancing guidelines
, saying they would be in place for two weeks. The subsequent
economic disruptions were so severe that the president repeatedly suggested that he wanted to lift even
those temporary restrictions. He frequently asked aides why his administration was still being blamed in
news coverage for the widespread failures involving testing, insisting the responsibility had shifted to the
states.
During the last week in March, Kellyanne Conway, a senior White House adviser
involved in task force meetings, gave voice to concerns other aides had. She warned Mr. Trump that his
wished-for date of Easter to reopen the country likely couldn't be accomplished. Among other things, she
told him, he would end up being blamed by critics for every subsequent death caused by the virus.
Within days, he watched images on television of a calamitous situation at
Elmhurst Hospital Center, miles from his childhood home in Queens, N.Y., where
13 people had died
from the coronavirus in 24 hours.
CB on Sat, 04/11/2020
- 4:46pm Timeline on how Donald Trump completely failed America.
This expose by the New York Times is the best reporting I have seen on Trump's complete
inability and subsequent failure to lead during this time of acute crisis.
An examination reveals the president was warned about the potential for a pandemic but
that internal divisions, lack of planning and his faith in his own instincts led to a halting
response.
April 11, 2020
Updated 4:33 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- "Any way you cut it, this is going to be bad," a senior medical adviser at
the Department of Veterans Affairs, Dr. Carter Mecher, wrote on the night of Jan. 28, in an
email to a group of public health experts scattered around the government and universities.
"The projected size of the outbreak already seems hard to believe."
A week after the first coronavirus case had been identified in the United States, and six
long weeks before President Trump finally took aggressive action to confront the danger the
nation was facing -- a pandemic that is now forecast to take tens of thousands of American
lives -- Dr. Mecher was urging the upper ranks of the nation's public health bureaucracy to
wake up and prepare for the possibility of far more drastic action.
...
The Containment Illusion
By the last week of February, it was clear to the administration's public health team that
schools and businesses in hot spots would have to close. But in the turbulence of the Trump
White House, it took three more weeks to persuade the president that failure to act quickly
to control the spread of the virus would have dire consequences.
...
The China Factor
The earliest warnings about coronavirus got caught in the crosscurrents of the
administration's internal disputes over China. It was the China hawks who pushed earliest for
a travel ban. But their animosity toward China also undercut hopes for a more cooperative
approach by the world's two leading powers to a global crisis.
...
The Consequences of Chaos
The chaotic culture of the Trump White House contributed to the crisis. A lack of planning
and a failure to execute, combined with the president's focus on the news cycle and his
preference for following his gut rather than the data cost time, and perhaps lives.
Award-winning journalist John Pilger has revealed that the NHS staged an exercise in London in
2016 which proved it was unable to cope with a pandemic like Covid-19, but its findings were
suppressed.
Speaking to RT's
Going Underground
, Pilger said that back in 2016, the UK government ran a
drill in London that showed the health service was incapable of dealing with an outbreak.
He described the failure as a
"crime"
and told host Afshin Rattansi that the findings
from the exercise, titled Cygnus, had been concealed by the government.
"The result of the drill was that the health service was overwhelmed, there weren't enough
beds, there weren't enough ventilators, there weren't enough clinicians in the right places. The whole
system, which had been battered by cuts and privatization for years, failed,"
he said.
The journalist explained that the NHS had been
"devastated"
by the Tory-led government's
decision to bring in the Health and Social Care Act in 2012.
Pilger's scathing comments come a day after the UK recorded its most deaths in a single day since
the crisis began. The 854 fatalities took the total to 6,159.
Projections by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, US, warned that the UK
could become the European country worst-hit by Covid-19, possibly accounting for 40 percent of the
continent's deaths.
The documentary film maker, whose most recent works include 'The Dirty War on the NHS,' also
blasted successive British governments since the 1980s for slashing NHS funding and pursuing a policy
of privatization by
"stealth."
If I comprehend, the issue was that they knew there was a problem in November rather than
December.
Not sure the point really, we are awash in examples of U.S. government incompetence - look up
incompetence on Wikipedia has Pompous' photo (OK but it should).
Realistically:
- the government is slow to respond
- the government is bad at planning
- the government is around 1 million people all pulling in different directions
- it is only when problem is obvious and damaging that the government gets somewhat
focused
- the virus is invisible
- the extent of damage was uncertain
The WHO had been made aware of Covid-19 by December last year. In January, it posted a tweet
saying: "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear
evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in
Wuhan, China."
Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear
evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus
(2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan , #China
🇨🇳. pic.twitter.com/Fnl5P877VG
Then in February, Ghebreyesus declared that there was no need for travel bans, saying the
spread of the virus outside China was "minimal and slow." Fast forward to March 11, and
Dr Tedros was telling the world that coronavirus was officially a pandemic and that he was
"deeply concerned by alarming levels of inaction" as it spread. Days later, he tweeted
that the "pandemic is accelerating."
Then, at a press conference, he said that "all countries should be able to test all
suspected cases" because "they cannot fight this pandemic blindfolded." Perhaps if
countries had been warned about the need for widespread testing sooner; they would have been
better placed to implement such measures?
The #COVID19 pandemic
is accelerating. It took 67 days from the 1st reported case to reach the first 100K cases, 11
days for the second 100K cases & just 4 days for the third 100K cases.These numbers
matter, these are people, whose lives & families have been turned upside down. https://t.co/VydhLBNq36
-- Tedros Adhanom
Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) March 23,
2020
Obviously, hindsight is 20/20 and it is very easy to criticize a person or an organization
for not predicting something after it has happened. But the WHO should have been better
prepared for this, not least because it already had experience of the spread of SARS, MERS,
H5N1 and swine flu in recent years to draw on. Admittedly, none spread as virulently as
Covid-19, but it was obvious from those outbreaks that measures such as testing and restricting
travel would help slow the spread.
Perhaps it was concerned about again being accused of overreacting, as it had been by some
in response to the 2009 swine flu outbreak. Possibly, it too readily believed the low figures
being reported by China during the early part of this year. Maybe it assumed countries were
more prepared to deal with pandemics than they turned out to be. Whatever the reasons may or
may not be, the fact remains that when the world turned to the WHO, it failed. No amount of
publicity stunts, like today's appearance by Lady Gaga, will change that.
WHO will have a special guest at today's #COVID19 press
conference: @ladygaga will be joining us to
announce the One World: #TogetherAtHome
virtual global special on 18 April 2020. 📺 at 15.30 GMT
-- World Health
Organization (WHO) (@WHO) April 6, 2020
Exactly where in the organization's structure the blame lies is impossible for an
outsider to say, but surely the buck must stop eventually with Dr Tedros. His messaging early
on in this crisis hugely downplayed the risks and has without question led to a situation that
at least had a chance of being avoided. When the dust has settled, and the virus is finally
brought under control, a serious question will have to be asked: who can trust the WHO?
"... The US for decades has as a matter of policy tried to reduce the number of hospital beds, which among other things has led to the shuttering of hospitals, particularly in rural areas. Hero of the day, New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo pursued this agenda with vigor, as did his predecessor George Pataki. ..."
"... In a functional system, much of the preparation and messaging would have been undertaken by the CDC. In this case, it chose not to simply adopt the World Health Organization's COVID-19 test kits -- stockpiling them in the millions in the months we had between the first arrival of the coronavirus in China and its widespread appearance here -- but to try to develop its own test. Why? It isn't clear. But they bungled that project, too, failing to produce a reliable test and delaying the start of any comprehensive testing program by a few critical weeks. ..."
"... Thomas Hobbes argued that life apart from society would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Outside poor countries and communities, advances in science and industrialization have largely proven him right. ..."
"... Come quietly to The Gap ..."
"... "notions about parenting changed very drastically in the 80's" ..."
"... "the too-common belief that it is possible to run an operation, any operation, by numbers, appears to be a root cause." ..."
"... A sound banker, alas! is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional and orthodox way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame him. ..."
"... it didn't matter ..."
"... our identities as academics are unavoidably embedded in a form of neoliberal hyperglobalisation. We rely on unrestricted flows of (wealthy) bodies across borders. ..."
"... Variable coronavirus outcomes by nation could suggest a combination of elite incompetence, poor individual judgment, a lack of appreciation of risk in all its Rumsfeldian forms, corruption, a desire by oligarchs for autocratic control and being insulated and divorced from actual operations; or underlying cultural and economic factors. ..."
"... My own view is that we can trace the root cause of policy failure back to the dominant values of leadership and the values of the society/culture which spawned them regarding the relative importance of money in determining policy choices regarding public health and safety. ..."
Leaders in the public and private sector in advanced economies, typically highly
credentialed, have with very few exceptions shown abject incompetence in dealing with
coronavirus as a pathogen and as a wrecker of economies. The US and UK have made particularly
sorry showings, but they are not alone.
It's become fashionable to blame the failure to have enough medical stockpiles and hospital
beds and engage in aggressive enough testing and containment measures on capitalism. But as I
will describe shortly, even though I am no fan of Anglosphere capitalism, I believe this focus
misses the deeper roots of these failures.
Even though there are plenty of examples of capitalism gone toxic, such as hospitals and Big
Pharma sticking doggedly to their price gouging ways or rampant production disruptions due to
overly tightly-tuned supply chains, that isn't an adequate explanation. Government dereliction
of duty also abound. In 2006, California's Governor Arnold Schwarznegger reacted to the avian
flu by creating MASH on steroids.
From the LA Times :
They were ready to roll whenever disaster struck California: three 200-bed mobile
hospitals that could be deployed to the scene of a crisis on flatbed trucks and provide
advanced medical care to the injured and sick within 72 hours.
Each hospital would be the size of a football field, with a surgery ward, intensive care
unit and X-ray equipment. Medical response teams would also have access to a massive
stockpile of emergency supplies: 50 million N95 respirators, 2,400 portable ventilators and
kits to set up 21,000 additional patient beds wherever they were needed
"In light of the pandemic flu risk, it is absolutely a critical investment," he [Governor
Schwarznegger] told a news conference. "I'm not willing to gamble with the people's
safety."
They were dismantled in 2011 by Governor Jerry Brown as part of post-crisis belt
tightening.
The US for decades has as a matter of policy tried to reduce the number of hospital beds,
which among other things has led to the shuttering of hospitals, particularly in rural areas.
Hero of the day, New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo pursued this agenda with vigor, as did his
predecessor George Pataki.
And even though Trump has made bad decision after bad decision, from eliminating the CDC's
pandemic unit to denying the severity of the crisis and refusing to use government powers to
turbo-charge state and local medical responses, people better qualified than he is have also
performed disastrously. America's failure to test early and enough can be laid squarely at the
feet of the CDC. As New
York Magazine pointed out on March 12:
In a functional system, much of the preparation and messaging would have been
undertaken by the CDC. In this case, it chose not to simply adopt the World Health
Organization's COVID-19 test kits -- stockpiling them in the millions in the months we had
between the first arrival of the coronavirus in China and its widespread appearance here --
but to try to develop its own test. Why? It isn't clear. But they bungled that project, too,
failing to produce a reliable test and delaying the start of any comprehensive testing
program by a few critical weeks.
The testing shortage is catastrophic: It means that no one knows how bad the outbreak
already is, and that we couldn't take effectively aggressive measures even we wanted to.
There are so few tests available, or so little capacity to run them, that they are being
rationed for only the most obvious candidates, which practically defeats the purpose. It is
not those who are very sick or who have traveled to existing hot spots abroad who are most
critical to identify, but those less obvious, gray-area cases -- people who may be carrying
the disease around without much reason to expect they're infecting others Even those who are
getting tested have to wait at least several days for results; in Senegal, where the per
capita income is less than $3,000, they are getting results in four hours. Yesterday,
apparently, the CDC conducted zero tests
[O]ur distressingly inept response, kept bringing to mind an essay by Umair Haque, first
published in 2018 and prompted primarily by the opioid crisis, about the U.S. as the world's
first rich failed state
And the Trump Administration has such difficulty shooting straight that it can't even manage
its priority of preserving the balance sheets of the well off. Its small business bailouts,
which are as much about saving those enterprises as preserving their employment,
are off to a shaky start . How many small and medium sized ventures can and will maintain
payrolls out of available cash when they aren't sure when and if Federal rescue money will hit
their bank accounts?
How did the US, and quite a few other advanced economies, get into such a sorry state that
we are lack the operational capacity to engage in effective emergency responses? Look at what
the US was able to do in the stone ages of the Great Depression.
As Marshall Auerback wrote of the New Deal programs :
The government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation
projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America,
and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state
capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge
complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown. It
also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800
bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers,
rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians,
sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.
What are the deeper causes of our contemporary generalized inability to respond to
large-scale threats? My top picks are a lack of respect for risk and the rise of symbol
manipulation as the dominant means of managing in the private sector and government.
Risk? What Risk?
Thomas Hobbes argued that life apart from society would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish
and short." Outside poor countries and communities, advances in science and industrialization
have largely proven him right.
It was not long ago, in historical terms, that even aristocrats would lose children to
accidents and disease. Only four of Winston Churchill's six offspring lived to be adults.
Comparatively few women now die in childbirth.
But it isn't just that better hygiene, antibiotics, and vaccines have helped reduce the
scourges of youth. They have also reduced the consequences of bad fortune. Fewer soldiers are
killed in wars. More are patched up, so fewer come back in coffins and more with prosthetics or
PTSD. And those prosthetics, which enable the injured to regain some of their former function,
also perversely shield ordinary citizens from the spectacle of lost limbs. 1
Similarly, when someone is hit by a car or has a heart attack, as traumatic as the spectacle
might be to onlookers, typically an ambulance arrives quickly and the victim is whisked away.
Onlookers can tell themselves he's in good hands and hope for the best.
With the decline in manufacturing, fewer people see or hear of industrial accidents, like
the time a salesman in a paper mill in which my father worked stuck his hand in a digester and
had his arm ripped off. And many of the victims of hazardous work environments suffer from
ongoing exposures, such as to toxic chemicals or repetitive stress injuries, so the danger
isn't evident until it is too late.
Most also are oddly disconnected from the risks they routinely take, like riding in a car (I
for one am pretty tense and vigilant when I drive on freeways, despite like to speed as much as
most Americans). Perhaps it is due in part to the illusion of being in control while
driving.
Similarly, until the coronavirus crisis, even with America's frayed social safety nets, most
people, particularly the comfortably middle class and affluent, took comfort in appearances of
normalcy and abundance. Stores are stocked with food. Unlike the oil crisis of the 1970,
there's no worry about getting petrol at the pump. Malls may be emptying out and urban retail
vacancies might be increasing, but that's supposedly due to the march of Amazon, and not
anything amiss with the economy. After all, unemployment is at record lows, right?
Those who do go to college in America get a plush experience. No thin mattresses or only
adequately kept-up dorms, as in my day. The notion that kids, even of a certain class, have to
rough it a bit, earn their way up and become established in their careers and financially,
seems to have eroded. Quite a few go from pampered internships to fast-track jobs. In the
remote era of my youth, even in the prestigious firms, new hires were subjected to at least a
couple of years of grunt work.
So the class of people with steady jobs (which these days are well-placed members of the
professional managerial class, certain trades and those who chose low-risk employment with
strong civil service protections) have also become somewhat to very removed from the risks
endured when most people were subsistence farmers or small town merchants who served them.
The coronavirus is spreading a dangerous strain of inequality. Better-off Americans are
still getting paid and are free to work from home, while the poor are either forced to risk
going out to work or lose their jobs.
Generally speaking, the people who are positioned to be least affected by coronavirus are
the most rattled. That is due to the gap between expectations and the new reality. Poor people
have Bad Shit Happen on a regular basis. Wealthy people expect to be able to insulate
themselves from most of it and then have it appear in predictable forms, like cheating spouses
and costly divorces, bad investments (still supposedly manageable if you are diversified!),
renegade children, and common ailments, like heart attacks and cancer, where the rich better
the odds by advantaged access to care.
The super rich are now bunkered, belatedly realizing they can't set up ICUs at home, and
hiring guards to protect themselves from marauding hordes, yet uncertain that their mercenaries
won't turn on them.
The bigger point is that we've had a Minksy-like process operating on a society-wide basis:
as daily risks have declined, most people have blinded themselves to what risk amounts to and
where it might surface in particularly nasty forms. And the more affluent and educated classes,
who disproportionately constitute our decision-makers, have generally been the most
removed.
The proximity to risk goes a long way to explaining who has responded better. As many have
pointed out, the countries that had meaningful experience with SARS 2 had a much
better idea of what they were up against with the coronavirus and took aggressive measures
faster.
But how do you explain South Korea, which had only three cases of SARS and no deaths? It
doesn't appear to have had enough experience with SARS to have learned from it.
A related factor may be that developing economies have fresh memories of what life was like
before they became affluent. I can't speak for South Korea, but when I worked with the
Japanese, people still remembered the "starving times" right after World War II. Japan was
still a poor country in the 1960s. 3 South Korea rose as an economic power after
Japan. The Asian Tigers were also knocked back on their heels with the 1997 emerging markets
crisis. And of course Seoul is in easy nuke range of North Korea. It's the only country I ever
visited, including Israel, where I went through a metal detector to enter and saw lots of
soldiers carrying machine guns in the airport. So they likely have a keen appreciation of how
bad bad can be.
The Rise and Rise of the Symbol Economy
Let me start with an observation by Peter Drucker that I read back in the 1980s, but will
then redefine his take on "symbol economy," because I believe the phenomenon has become much
more pervasive than he envisioned.
The most significant transformation for Drucker was the changed relationship between the
symbolic economy of capital movements, exchange rates, and credit flows, and the real economy
of the flow of goods and services:
in the world economy of today, the 'real economy' of goods and services and the 'symbol
economy' of money, credit, and capital are no longer bound tightly to each other; they are
indeed, moving further and further apart (1986: 783)
The rise of the financial sphere as the flywheel of the world economy, Drucker noted, is
both the most visible and the least understood change of modern capitalism.
What Drucker may not have sufficiently appreciated was money and capital flows are
speculative and became more so over time. In their study of 800 years of financial crises,
Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff found that high levels of international capital flows were
strongly correlated with more frequent and more severe financial crises. Claudio Borio and
Petit Disyatat of the Banks of International Settlements found that on the eve of the 2008
crisis, international capital flows were 61 times as large as trade flows, meaning they were
only trivially settling real economy transactions.
Now those factoids alone may seem to offer significant support to Drucker's thesis. But I
believe he conceived of it too narrowly. I believe that modeling techniques, above all,
spreadsheet-based models, have removed decision-makers from the reality of their decisions. If
they can make it work on paper, they believe it will work that way.
When I went to business school and started on Wall Street, financiers and business analysts
did their analysis by hand, copying information from documents and performing computations with
calculators. It was painful to generate financial forecasts, since one error meant that
everything to the right was incorrect and had to be redone.
The effect was that when managers investigated major capital investments and acquisitions,
they thought hard about the scenarios they wanted to consider since they could look at only a
few. And if a model turned out an unfavorable-looking result, that would be hard to rationalize
away, since a lot of energy had been devoted to setting it up.
By contrast, when PCs and Visicalc hit the scene, it suddenly became easy to run lots of
forecasts. No one had any big investment in any outcome. And spending so much time playing with
financial models would lead most participants to a decision to see the model as real, when it
was a menu, not a meal.
When reader speak with well-deserved contempt of MBA managers, the too-common belief that it
is possible to run an operation, any operation, by numbers, appears to be a root cause. For
over five years, we've been running articles from the Health Renewal Blog decrying the rise of
"generic managers" in hospital systems (who are typically also spectacularly overpaid) who
proceed to grossly mismanage their operations yet still rake in the big bucks.
The UK version of this pathology is more extreme, because it marries managerial
overconfidence with a predisposition among British elites to look at people who work hard as
"must not be sharp." But the broad outlines apply here. From Clive,
on a Brexit post, when Brexit was the poster child of UK elite incompetence :
What's struck me most about the UK government's approach to the practical day-to-day
aspects of Brexit is that it is exemplifying a typically British form of managerialism which
bedevilles both public sector and private sector organisations. It manifests itself in all
manner of guises but the main characteristic is that some "leader" issues impractical,
unworkable, unachievable or contradictory instructions (or a "strategy") to the lower ranks.
These lower ranks have been encouraged to adopt the demeanour of yes-men (or yes-women). So
you're not allowed to question the merits of the ask. Everyone keeps quiet and takes the
paycheck while waiting for the roof to fall in on them. It's not like you're on the
breadline, so getting another year or so in isn't a bad survival attitude. If you make a fuss
now, you'll likely be replaced by someone who, in the leadership's eyes is a lot more can-do
(but is in fact just either more naive or a better huckster).
Best illustrated perhaps by an example -- I was asked a day or two ago to resolve an issue
I'd reported using "imaginative" solutions. Now, I've got a a vivid imagination, but even
that would not be able to comply with two mutually contradictory aims at the same time
("don't incur any costs for doing some work" and "do the work" -- where because we've
outsourced the supply of the services in question, we now get real, unhideable invoices which
must be paid).
To the big cheeses, the problem is with the underlings not being sufficiently clever or
inventive. The real problem is the dynamic they've created and their inability to perceive
the changes (in the same way as swinging a wrecking ball is a "change") they've wrought on an
organisation.
May, Davies, Fox, the whole lousy lot of 'em are like the pilot in the Airplane movie --
they're pulling on the levers of power only to find they're not actually connected to
anything. Wait until they pull a little harder and the whole bloody thing comes off in their
hands.
Americans typically do this sort of thing with a better look: the expectations are usually
less obviously implausible, particularly if they might be presented to the wider world. One of
the cancers of our society is the belief that any problem can be solved with better PR, another
manifestation of symbol economy thinking.
I could elaborate further on how these attitudes have become common, such as the ability of
companies to hide bad operating results and them come clean every so often as if it were an
extraordinary event, short job tenures promoting "IBG/YBG" opportunism, and the use of lawyers
as liability shields (for the execs, not the company, natch).
But it's not hard to see how it was easy to rationalize away the risks of decisions like
globalization. Why say no to what amounted to a transfer from direct factory labor to managers
and execs? Offshoring and outsourcing were was sophisticated companies did. Wall Street liked
them. Them gave senior employees an excuse to fly abroad on the company dime. So what if the
economic case was marginal? So what if the downside could be really bad? What Keynes said about
banker herd mentality applies:
A sound banker, alas! is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he
is ruined, is ruined in a conventional and orthodox way along with his fellows, so that no
one can really blame him.
It's not hard to see how a widespread societal disconnect of decision-makers from risk,
particularly health-related risks, compounded with management by numbers as opposed to kicking
the tires, would combine to produce lax attitude toward operations in general.
I believe a third likely factor is poor governance practices, and those have gotten
generally worse as organizations have grown in scale and scope. But there is more
country-specific nuance here, and I can discuss only a few well, so adding this to my theory
will have to hold for another day. But it isn't hard to think of some in America. For instance,
40 years ago, there were more midsized companies, with headquarters in secondary cities like
Dayton, Ohio. Executives living in and caring about their reputation in their communities
served as a check on behavior.
Before you depict me as exaggerating about the change in posture toward risks, I recall
reading policy articles in the 1960s where officials wrung their hands about US dependence on
strategic materials found only in unstable parts of Africa. That US would never have had China
make its soldiers' uniforms, boots, and serve as the source for 80+ of the active ingredients
in its drugs. And America was most decidedly capitalist in the 1960s. So we need to look at how
things have changed to explain changes in postures towards risk and notions of what competence
amounts to.
_____ 1 One of my early memories was seeing a one-legged man using a crutch, with the
trouser of his missing leg pinned up. I pointed to him and said something to my parents and was
firmly told never to do anything like that again.
3 Japan has had a pretty lame coronavirus response, but that is the result of
Japan's strong and idiosyncratic culture. While Japanese are capable of taking action
individually when they are isolated, in group settings, no one wants to act or even worse take
responsibility unless their is an accepted or established protocol.
Ian Walsh has a good take on it – he ascribes it to a new aristocracy, which has
all the vices of the old aristocracy.
Let's chalk this up to aristocratic elites. Aristocrats, unlike nobles, are decadent,
but don't stop with that word; understand what it means.
Elites who are not aligned with the actual productive activities of society and are
engaged primarily in activities which are contrary to production, are decadent. This was
true in Ancien Regime France (and deliberately fostered by Louis XIV as a way of
emasculating the nobility). It is true today of most Western elites; they concentrate on
financial numbers, and not on actual production. Even those who are somewhat competent tend
not to be truly productive: see the Waltons, who made their money as
distributers–merchants.
The techies have mostly outsourced production; they don't make things, they design them.
That didn't work out for England in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and it hasn't
worked well for the US, though thanks to Covid-19 and US fears surrounding China, the US
may re-shore their production capacity before it is too late.
I think there is also a lot to be said for historical (and current) memories of crisis.
Both South Korea and Taiwan are countries on a near permanent war footage – both have
genuine reasons to fear an external attack (this is particularly visible in South Korea
– bomb shelters and warnings everywhere). They are simply at a higher level of alert
than most countries and take civil defence very seriously. Much the same applies to
Vietnam.
I've noticed here that so far as I can see, the response in Ireland has been significantly
better than the UK, despite the NHS being a far better system than the rickety, unequal, and
notoriously bureaucratic Irish system. I've noticed that a lot of the official response has
revived old protocols for TB and Polio – both diseases that ravaged Ireland into living
memory – most old doctors of my acquaintance here will tell you horror stories and I
grew up knowing people crippled from polio. While in the UK its fair to say I think that such
horrors have slipped out of bureaucratic memory. People talk about the War, but in reality
they have no real memory of the horrors of seeing neighbours die. So I think there is a lot
to be said for simple institutional memory and practice allowing some countries to respond
that big quicker. And with this virus even just 2-3 weeks extra preparation could have made
all the difference to a country or region.
And they don't have to live where they are from anymore. When Tony Blair wants positive
attention, he jets off to the US or Israel. Claire McCaskill lost a statewide race when the
same electorate passed a minimum wage increase and legalized at least medical Marijuana. She
now opines on Comcast PR about elections.
That does make a difference. After the Celtic Tiger crash in Ireland, the PM (Bertie
Ahern) who was largely responsible ended up banned from his regular pub where he was well
known to have a pint every evening after his day job. The owner explained that if he didn't
bar him, he'd lose the rest of his customers.
Mind you, like all the others he still makes a living on the public speaking circuit and
his chiklit writer daughter got a mysteriously large book deal from a Murdoch owned
publisher..
The Irish case is interesting, because the performance of the state in recent times has
been anything but competent. The bank bailout and the cervical cancer cases allowed by the
botched testing program are examples. I remember a Morgan Kelly lecture where he said, "We
don't do competence in Ireland. You start holding people responsible and you might get
some of the 'wrong' people."
The Irish leadership stratum so far looks as if it has done a better job than even the US.
Your point about the living memory TB and Polio -- in the 50s, my aunt and uncle, visiting
from the US, were advised by the priest not to go to mass because of the danger of picking up
TB -- rings true. I wonder if the recent fails by the state, that seem to have left the
public abidingly angry (the bailout) and aghast (authorities letting women die of cervical
cancer ) have shown elites that they have no political room to fail this time, and that they
must show tangible success.
Plutonium Kun: Thanks for re-posting the Ian Welsh essay, which was posted at Naked
Capitalism a couple days ago–and which has been on my mind since I read it then. I
recall that when I was living on the North Shore, the belt of rich suburbs north of Chicago,
on a whimsy for a few years, the prevailing stance in dealing with others was a kind of
genial incompetence. Shortly after, I returned to Chicago for some grit and consequences.
I woke up this morning thinking of this example of the decadence (a term Welsh describes):
The serious person Hillary Clinton opining on something or other. Where is serious person,
and vision of competence, Hillary Clinton these days? Why isn't she advocating for the little
people? Or at least for her slobbering fan club? Or hoping for another soft-ball interview
that doesn't ask what it was like to be Bill's bag-man all those years as they raked in the
moolah?
The incompetence is a symptom of a morally-degenerate managerial class Infected with bad
ideas and having no sense of responsibility to anyone other than themselves. They plan out
quarter by quarter, loot their companies instead of investing in them, and lie habitually.
This is CORRUPTION. Consider that the ex-CEO of GE, with all his hundreds of millions
garnered by cheating GE employees and offshoring their jobs, looting company funds to enrich
himself and his co-conspirators, was also a tax cheat, buying art for his NY city palace but
claiming it was for his abode in NH and evading NY sales tax. Committing fraud to evade his
fair share. A better model for what ails US America cannot be found than this scum.
And note that Boeing moved its headquarters to Chicago "to be more like GE". Well they've
destroyed the company to be more like the looters and liars and cheats. Nice work if you can
get it.
This post is not just about the private sector. State and local governments are primarily
responsible for public health.
Your theory does not explain Jerry Brown killing the Schwarznegger emergency response
apparatus.
Nor is it adequate to respond to the general idea that "never attribute to malice that
which can be explained by incompetence". Even though it is obvious that America has a lot of
corruption, you omit the notion that a lot of stupid will also explain much of what we are
seeing now.
Thank for your article – due to that we humans tend to compare us to each other, we
are prone to error. Why shouldn't we do, what the others do?
And that's were the incompetence gets it's grip on. Here in Germany we just avoided the
closure of smaller hospitals, because they are not efficient enough – now we are the
lucky ones with the higher number of beds and ICU's and ecma and so on.
That's not only luck, but the preachers of the neoliberal agenda have a hardship nowadays
– and 'we, the people' have a minimum of two years to redesign our societies.
But remember, too, that Brown showed in his first term, in the 70s, that he was a textbook
case of being one of Stoller's progressive post-Watergate Democrats that set aside New Deal
programs and regulation. I remember his deregulation of intrastate trucking from that time,
which the highly unionized truckers opposed. Come quietly to The Gap
I think one of the problems is that financialization and securitization of everything has
effectively separated the managerial class in both private and public sector from knowledge
and experience of actual logistics and execution.Transferring securities with the push of a
button is not the same as getting an industrial plant or phone center built, trained, and
running efficiently. Companies and organizations with a history of doing this well can
completely undo that capability in only a couple of years (e.g. CDC, FEMA, numerous companies
taken over by PE). While my examples below are US-based, I think a lot of the same thought
processes have been going on in much of the OECD (e.g. Brexit debacle).
Once everything is measured in dollars with a maximum of a 1 to 5 years window, then it
becomes really easy to just focus on the little ball needed to become really "efficient"
without thinking about the bigger societal picture. I think the generations that grew up in
WW I, 19189-19 Flu, Prohibition, Great Depression, WW II had a much bigger picture of life
and society. In some respects, things like Vietnam, were an over-reaction (like immune system
going haywire) but on the whole, there was a big focus for 50 years on the potential for
really big, bad things to happen. Once the Berlin Wall fell, much of that dissipated and so
the shocks that come are generally responded to with a combination of bewilderment, lack of
general interest unless it personally impacts you, or the immune system going wild (Iraq
invasion, torture).
He wants universal daily testing of all Americans to prove daily they can be out and
about. This is in a country that can't figure out how to have half the country vote without
standing in lines for hours or hasn't been able to figure out how to even get sick people
tested and waiting a week or more more for the test results to come back. Granted, the 15
minute tests mean that it might be possible to set up a lemonade stand at the entrance to
every subdivision or subway station for people to get their daily test. The logistical
undertaking to do this would be mammoth, although there are at least lots of unemployed
people who could get several months of training to learn how to do such a test.
Once everything is measured in dollars with a maximum of a 1 to 5 years window, then it
becomes really easy to just focus on the little ball needed to become really "efficient"
without thinking about the bigger societal picture. I think the generations that grew up in
WW I, 19189-19 Flu, Prohibition, Great Depression, WW II had a much bigger picture of life
and society. In some respects, things like Vietnam, were an over-reaction (like immune system
going haywire) but on the whole, there was a big focus for 50 years on the potential for
really big, bad things to happen. Once the Berlin Wall fell, much of that dissipated and so
the shocks that come are generally responded to with a combination of bewilderment, lack of
general interest unless it personally impacts you, or the immune system going wild (Iraq
invasion, torture).
I am a design engineer and I have found it is really difficult to get people to engage in
real discussions of potential risks and solutions. Generally the only thing that anybody
wants to know is "What will it cost to be prepared?" Almost nobody wants to talk about low
probability, high impact events because that generally would not show up in the 1-5 years
time limit people care about.
low probability – high impact events and human nature. We just went thru a
surprising 5.6 earthquake – I'm pretty sure we were ground zero because it not only
shook the house like a hurricane for 4 seconds, there was also the sound of a very loud
explosion. Sometimes earthquakes make booms like that. If it had lasted another 2 or 3
seconds the roof would have come down; the gas lines would have pulled apart; the plumbing
would have been disabled and etc. But we just went, Well that was interesting. Lucky there
was no damage. Probably not worth taking out earthquake insurance – it's so
expensive.
State and local government ARE responsible for public health. The local people running
those agencies do not control their budgets. With insufficient funds their experience and
qualifications are wasted by scrambling for stop-gap methods. The political leaders
(Governors, mostly.) are most to blame. So the next time folks are choosing at the ballot box
remember that public health needs vigoroous funding.
As for the incompetence of "managers" and the credentialed, it occurs everywhere in
organizations in America, and beyond. A paycheck is essential while "speaking up" is
dangerous. See: Captain Crozier. Most folks are neither secure enough financially or
academically to voice a contrasting observation.
Yves, this was an excellent post. Decidedly pointed. There are few who dare to take this
challenge. That is why NC is so important. Stay safe!
Are you sure you don't mean Dennis Koslowsky (spelled something like that) who was a CPA
from New Jersey and ran Tyco? At least he did some jail time. The smart ones figure out how
to cheat legally by hiring the well connected white shoe Ivy League lawyers. That is not to
say that GE was not mismanaged but it really was done in by the finance crisis because Jack
Welch bet the company on it which worked really well for a long time until it did not which
covered up the fact that manufacturing in the US is essentially impossible secondary to the
legal system and the health care system, or lack thereof.
If only it was as simple as saying that services operated by the state were fine, it's
private capital where the problem lies.
It's not. This is a societal and cultural problem.
There are employer "pushes" towards the deskilling and degrading of levels of operational
competence. One is employers ( both public sector and private sector) do not want to pay for
training and to retain a body of experienced employees because both of these cost money
up-front with a payoff (in the form of competent, knowledgeable staff) that comes only
slowly, later. And a churn of staff is seen as the sign, wrongly, but this is what the MBAs
sell as snake oil, of a dynamic, healthy organisation which is bringing in (through a process
which never seems to be adequately explained) new talent. Plus, of course, most obviously,
younger and newer employees are cheaper so your average headcount cost is lower which is
usually a management metric -- often one which is incentive-ised through reward.
There are also employee "pulls" -- and again, these are not just observed in the private
sector. You see them in medicine, academia and even, most bizarrely, the arts. An example of
these employee-instigated causes of a reduction in capability is that it becomes
in-cultural-ated that if you spend too long in the same place, you're only doing so out of
necessity because you're so useless, no-one else will employ you. So even if don't really
want to move onto a different organisation or a different field of work outside your
skillset, you feel you have to, in order to avoid looking "stale", "resistant to change",
"stuck in your comfort zone" or any other of the myriad of thought-crimes which you don't
want, in today's job market, to be seen to having evidence of committing. And also, as
collective union bargaining has gone the way of the dinosaur, more often than not, if you
want a raise you have to threaten to quit to get one. But again, more often than not, your
current employer will call your bluff and let you leave. So you have to have another job
lined up to to go to, if you're not to fall into a trap of flouncing off in a huff but having
no other work to walk straight into. While your current employer might not, if they were
honest, want to lose you, the dynamics of the workplace being what they are, neither side can
then climb down from the ultimatums they've just served.
Yes, there are some notable poster-children of how private enterprise has committed
suicide through the wanton bloodletting of its skilled employees (Boeing being a recent
case-in-point). But even if you cast your gaze in the direction of public employers, this
same phenomena can be found in universities, colleges and K-12 schools (where faculties are
no longer bolstered by a strong bench of tenured staff, contract and non-tenured
hire-and-fire disposable staff are now the norm, I won't even go there on the effect of
charter schools) healthcare (even in the UK's entirely public sector NHS, there is huge
reliance on contract and agency staff which the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted and the
government is trying, belatedly and without any clear indication it can do so in the short
term
to redress this and avoid being price-gouged). Or federal and state
regulators which now simply do not understand the businesses they are supposed to be
regulating and have to buy-in external "expertise" (and merely exacerbate the revolving
door problem).
In summary, I wish it were so simple to merely say "private sector bad, government good".
But the rot has set in from top to bottom across all aspects of how we manage our shared
organisational maturity (or, should I say, now, fix our shared organisational immaturity) and
whether or not it started in the private sector, it has well and truly spread to infect the
public sector, too. This was the unmistakable point of the post, so it bears re-reading it
again with a particular emphasis on understanding why this is the case.
devolution by automation. the dystopia we didn't see coming. can't help believing that
automation itself – even though it has often been, or seemed to be, beneficial –
hasn't undermined and/or destroyed what should be a collective human intelligence and
contagious creativity that is the real thing that makes us thrive. But it takes a long steady
progression and we're all too impatient.
In my experience working as a lawyer in government service for 34 years, I saw this
obsession with "new blood" and "innovation" flooding the system with lawyers -- and judges --
who were breezily ignorant of the law, yet supremely confident in their own cleverness.
University faculties dominated by TA's and adjuncts; charter schools taught by
6-week-wonder TFA's; warships piloted by teenagers; Presidents with no experience in
government The list goes on and on.
I blame the instant and consequence-free ego gratification of television-watching for this
phenomenon.
100% on the employer pushes. I've seen this plenty in my 25 years of working in
engineering and manufacturing businesses. And no matter how many "systems" and "quality
functions" they put in place, experience matters. In has happened several times that even
with great and detailed documentation, when a particular machinist retires, a product line
starts having quality issues. Several times we've had layoffs for some reason or another and
they have to bring particular individuals back because there was some function they did that
no one else is qualified or able to do. Also, because we run lean, cross training is
difficult no one has the extra time.
It is disappointing to see these early comments ignore the framing of the post and go for
simplistic takes.
I said at the top that this post was about advanced economies that had poor coronavirus
responses, not just the US. That includes Belgium, France, and the Netherlands, all of which
have much higher fatalities per capita than the US. None of those countries have high rates
of infant mortality.
That's a bit optimistic.You could argue Belgium and the
Netherlands have already plateaued in terms of new cases and deaths. For France the
numbers are not as clear thanks to a one-day spike in reported nursing home cases. But
the US
has shown clear exponential growth in both new cases and deaths thru today. I don't think the
data is in.
For the last week the US has reported 20-30k new cases a day which means the deaths won't
hit for another 1-2 weeks. The number of tests is comparable to the other countries you
listed, so it isn't a matter of overdiagnosis. The East Coast is the only region in the US
doing meaningful testing.
It's not farfetched to think the US will experience a uniquely bad result in terms of
health care and economic outcomes because of its uniquely bad health care system and elite
indifference. Never attribute to malice or indifference that which can be adequately
explained by indifference. Malice is too difficult to prove, and when it comes to enriching
themselves, elites are demonstrably competent. What they are, is indifferent. They simply
don't care about long term outcomes or their population. For them, everything is consequence
free. Coronavirus is just another example in the litany.
2 models dominate the informed universal health care coverage debate: 1) a purely public
(state) model, as in the UK and Italy, in which financing for health care costs is located in
the federal budget where it is allocated from a stream of tax revenues and financing sources;
and 2) a highly regulated non-profit (non-state) model, as in most of Scandinavia and central
Europe, in which financing is located in a pool of premiums and when needed, e.g. for the
very young, poor, elderly who cannot afford to pay premiums, state subsidies.
A variation on 2) is a hybrid of non-profits and private, profit-oriented insurers, as in
Germany and the Netherlands, in which the mix is critical and is subject to regulation.
Something like 90% non-profit, 10% private is IMHO OK though in Germany it might be more like
70/30.
The EU has been blamed for the devastation caused by Covid-19 in Italy. The argument goes
something like, the austerity imposed by the Germans forced Italy to reduce health care
capacities. The Frankfurter Allgemeine argues today that ECB imposed austerity is not to
blame. Rather the purely state model of financing for health care coverage is at fault. The
fact is that in the Italian model many stakeholders want a share of the stream of tax
revenues and financing sources from which funds for the provision of health care are also
drawn. The FAZ notes that Italian state retirement benefits have risen substantially in
recent years while funding for health care has been level.
The rise of the FIRE sectors as a percentage of GDP has been obvious. We are
over-financialized. All this has done is over lay a very expensive layer of debt and interest
payments on the real economy. This is the bubble the pandemic pricked.
Again, this post is not about the US. It is about trying to develop theories as to why
some countries responded reasonably well to the coronavirus crisis and others not.
Italy's banking sector, even with its dud loans not written down, is 1.5 trillion euros v.
a GDP of about 1.9 trillion euros, or 79% of GDP. Unlike the US, Italy does not have a
ginormous securities market nor a big asset management business, so its banking industry is
pretty much the only game in town except for government bond issuance. By contrast, in the
US, banks are a way smaller proportion of financial activity (they represent <15% of
non-farm private loans) but even banking assets alone are a higher % of GDP, 94%.
Your explanation does not fit key facts. Italy, one of the very worst hit countries, is
not heavily financialized. It is also dominated by medium and small businesses
Besides the new aristocracy aspects and a general lack of accountability, I do wonder
about rates of foreign elites being "educated" in the US. When my parents go to Boston, all
they do is complain about how nice it is, but they remember when the nice areas were where
regular people lived. Like US tourists think all Europeans take high speed trains to work,
how much of Euro attitudes by seeing the rise of enclaves in the US?
I'll use UVA and Charlottesville Virginia, but if you never go beyond Preston Ave
(gentrification may have shifted it) away from Grounds, why would a student see poor people
or any lower class employees beyond UVA employees who aren't making a living wage?
Charlottesville has the highest rate of wealth inequality in the state.
Thank you. You analyze it. For years I have called it "playing video games". Years ago I
knew a guy who said it did not matter of what but he had to be a manager.It was some sort of
prestige thing for him. Took him out of the common herd in his way of looking at things.
Yesterday, I read Paul Johnson's short biography of Winston Churchill. Churchill did not like
desk work according to Johnson and every new task he undertook, he went out and learned the
ins and outs of it. He was a relentless inspector and questioner. He taught himself how to
lay bricks. He learned by doing and led from knowledge. He made mistakes. He took
responsibility. Certainly he was not a typical person, but neither did he sit in an office
assuming he knew it all because the model said he did.
That is why Boris Johnson is no Churchill. Churchill was in a lots of was a dilletante,
but he was an informed dilletante. He had hunger to learn, maybe too much of it to be good at
anything.
Johnson's hunger is just to be in the news, to make a history. I do wonder whether he
still believes it worth it now, or in a short future as he's being sedated for intubation
(which would not surprise me).
I do not really have much to add to what you write Yves. The "we lost sense of danger" is
something I have thought of for a long time. IMO, every system that loses feedback will
crash, sooner or later. We have worked really hard to remove not just the feedback, but any
traces of the feedback.
Everyone who asks for *real* feedback is looked at as a weirdo. We need to know shit
happens, we need to have bad shit happen to us now and then (speaking as one who had some
really bad shit happen).
One place you can learn about society is how it treats its kids. Most of the kids today
are way more cosied that even I ever was, and it's getting worse. We want to remove any and
all dangers, and we go to anyone who promises us that, even if we really know it's not
possible.
But we have to be very careful there. I believe that claims "we need suffering" are
bulshit, because most of the time they want to say that suffering is good for us. It's not.
It _may_ be necessary to remind us that bad stuff can happen, the same way as pain does. But
it doesn't mean we'd use it to excuse suffering.
: Grand strategy, according to Boyd, is a quest to isolate your enemy's (a nation-state or
a global terrorist network) thinking processes from connections to the external/reference
environment. This process of isolation is essentially the imposition of insanity on a group.
To wit: any organism that operates without reference to external stimuli (the real world),
falls into a destructive cycle of false internal dialogues. These corrupt internal dialogues
eventually cause dissolution and defeat.
For the central attribute is symmetry: the balancing of incentives and disincentives,
people should also penalized if something for which they are responsible goes wrong and hurts
others: he or she who wants a share of the benefits needs to also share some of the
risks.
. . .
And in the absence of the filtering of skin in the game, the mechanisms of evolution fail:
if someone else dies in your stead, the built up of asymmetric risks and misfitness will
cause the system to eventually blow-up.
I read your use of feedback as >reference to external stimuli (the real world).
With Taleb, I'm reading disincentives as penalties, and that lack of penalty/punishment
warps the selection process of evolution. With respect to the post, that has created a lack
of respect for risk by those who make decisions.
It can be taken a step farther, that the selection process has created perverse
incentives. For example, the bailouts from 2008 made the FIRE sector qliphotically
antifragile. In that scenario, risk becomes rewarding.
I want to be careful here about using the word feedback, its ambiguities could be
confusing. Given that, I'm interested in knowing what you mean about ignoring the
disincentives skin-in-the-game creates. Could you please expand on that?
My problem with Taleb's skin in the game is that, as he well knows, it's hard to
distinguish luck (good or bad) and skill. How can we punish for luck though?
Think of a judge, who gets, through his skill, 99 out of 100 cases right. But the 100th
– which, by pure luck, could be really large case – he gets wrong.
Or, even simpler. Technically, if you do one decision a day, and have 99% success rate,
every three months you get somethign wrong (1-0.99^60 = 0.54) more likely than not. Should
you be punished for this? If we yes, then people will start takin decisions where alternate
history is hard to prove, i.e. you create a selection bias towards "do nothing". You can then
be punished for "doing nothing" but most of the time "do nothing" is a safe choice. (it's a
specific case of "go with the crowd")
Also, in decision making, context is extremely important (which is why courts go to super
lenghts to establish it in judical cases). Taleb should know it, and he should also know that
unless context is taken into account _in_full_ then the skin-in-the-game will not be seen as
fair. But the problem is, the context can never be fully established, and rarely w/o the
participation of the major decision maker. Who will have no incentive to participate. Which
will hamper learning from it.
Skin in the game makes sense when you can clearly separate luck and skill, and clearly
establish context. Even one of those is rare occasion, both is extremely so.
That said, you can often establish post fact when someone blew up (this is what the
various enuiries do). And then you'd treat accordingly. But that's not skin-in-the-game,
because again, the enquiry can establish that you acted in good faith, as most people would
act at the time – and so assign no blame. So you may "fail honourably".
Skin in the game does not let you fail honourably – because it's not skin in the
game anymore (because it can let you game the system again, via doing just enough to pass any
future enquiry as "more could have been done, but there's no clear knowing dereliction of
duty).
TLDR; skin-in-the-game is an attempt at simplictic solution to a complex problem. Taleb
should know better.
I'd like to expand on this a bit, as I think it's deeply related Yves' point on risk and
perceptions of risk. Far as I can tell, notions about parenting changed very drastically in
the 80's when
1) mainstream media companies discovered that endlessly replaying (and sometimes plain
inventing) lurid tales of horrible things happening to children was good for ratings and
required no real journalistic effort or talent.
And 2) I'm not exactly sure how to describe what I'm trying to say, but somehow both
responsibility for rare and terrible tragedies along with childrens' and young adults' agency
got transferred to their parents. As if everything that happened to a child or that a child
did resulted directly from the adequacy of parenting received.
So rather than cozied (which I think of has having all one's needs met and being protected
from awfulness – a good thing), I think many children are micromanaged, isolated from
authentic social interactions, and perhaps worst of all, taught that profound questions of
morality and existence are best ignored (lest they cause distress). This, along with
cultivating an intense desire for approval from authority, seems to have become the default
mode of preparing children for membership in the privileged classes.
Somehow though, at the same time, we were also taught that our life situation is also
wholly the result of our qualities as people. Wondering about a person's station in life? We
were taught not to ask "what happened" but "what kind of person are they?" Are they smart or
dumb, cultured or trashy, attractive or loathsome? Unnattractive and trashy but rich, they
must be really really smart.
I think this combination of dramatically limiting children's opportunities for growth in
competence, confidence, friendships, independence, morality, worldview, and all the other
things that go into discovering who you are and where you fit in the world, combined with
relentless meritocratic mythologizing have raised a couple generations now that are both
terrified of risks yet somehow often heedless of the consequences of their decisions. We're
terrified to speak up in a meeting, but if the result of that meeting harms a lot of people,
well, not our fault, just how the world is.
All that said, there aren't many power brokers I can think of under the age of 65, so
maybe all this generational analysis is beside the point. Have the powers that be always been
so old?
The powerbrokers are (often) elected by the people. Who may be looking for a father
figure, rather than anything else. Someone who would take the responsbilities for them,
because they are too hard to bear (you'd argue that some poor don't vote because they don't
feel the need to offload their responsibilities on others, but it could be a bit
overconvoluted – I think most humans want to dump responsiblity elsewhere).
How to truly accept responsibility for ourselves is IMO one of the most important things
we'd teach out kids, and that we're failing to do so (myself included). It's hard, and
paradoxicaly, our society made it harder.
I think all I described has been hard on parents too. IMO, parents are only the primary
teachers of children in the early years before peers and society take over. To the extent
neoliberalism has a pedagogical philosophy, it's that we can't control things we do have
power over, and can control things we don't have power over. Love and accept your kids, treat
them with respect, listen, help them when you can, and make sure to laugh together from time
to time, and you'll be a parent I'd envy the children of.
"notions about parenting changed very drastically in the 80's"
– Brings to mind a long ago article regarding children raised in hunter-gatherer units,
was it Papua New Guinea? who were from toddler stage spared much of the parental policing now
considered appropriate. Allowed to play with the machete and roam free around the open camp
fire they emerged with far less anxiety and perhaps a more practical and functional risk
assessment process than modern kids.
Playgrounds today are foam buffered and accident proofed as much as possible, football and
hockey helmets and padding are designed to absorb the shock of contact. Automobiles are seat
belted, air bagged, AI driver assisted with back up cameras. Airlines and aircraft
manufacturers rely on ever advancing auto pilot systems, a trade off that dispenses with
higher salaried experienced pilots for lower paid, less flight tested, dial tenders. "the too-common belief that it is possible to run an operation, any operation, by numbers,
appears to be a root cause." -YS
I believe quantum physics has largely, by numbers alone, drifted off into string theory and
multiple universes, all fascinating but of a highly extenuated and dubious relation to
anything real.
We have lost touch with consequences through the intermediary remediation of technology and
virtual modeling, great tools but they have unintended consequences on human behavior.
What's struck me most about the UK government's approach to the practical day-to-day
aspects of Brexit is that it is exemplifying a typically British form of managerialism
which bedevilles both public sector and private sector organisations.
The genetic map of England (outside the major cities) is essentially unchanged since the
Anglo-Saxon invasion.
As a decades-long American ex-pat living in London, it's taken me a long-time to realize,
that despite its modern trappings, England remains a feudal society. The way ordinary
individuals feel a lack of agency and still look up to the aristocracy and Oxbridge graduates
for guidance rather than trusting their own skeptical instincts and standing up for those
such beliefs is astonishing.
The fact that "forelock tugging" (an act of deference to a passing lord) remains a phrase
in common usage says it all.
I've felt that the only thing that enforced competence was the elites credible fear of
communism after world War II. They had to do some things for the public lest their wealth be
seized by the public. And propaganda was used right up to the fall of the USSR. I was fairly
shocked that we then looked to China for all our outsourcing needs. The myth was that
capitalism would make China an open democracy. Whoops! We enabled them to become a great
power without any credible plan to make them any kind of ally beyond some mutual threat of
dual self destruction if a trade war erupts. China is credibly working to become independent
of the US with heavy state planning while we bail out and reward failed financiers and
abandon all public planning to rent extractors. What I wonder is if people will start to look
to another way that will credibly threaten the standard elite disaster capitalism approach
that has been the norm for decades now.
A sound banker, alas! is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when
he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional and orthodox way along with his fellows, so that no
one can really blame him. Keynes via Yves
The problem is that the payment system, besides grubby coins and paper Central Bank notes
(e.g. Federal Reserve Notes), must work through private depository institutions or not at
all.
How then can we have a sound economy when it is held hostage by "sound" bankers?
And are not the banks a form of rentier – who rent the Nation its money supply?
Then where are the proposals of the MMT School to euthanize those rentiers?
Right out of college, I got a job at a commodities trading firm on a recommendation from
my "Political Economics" prof. This was just when the PC started getting incorporated into
technical analysis. I learned one of the programs pretty quickly and made a few fortuitous
currency trades for some weird clients. One of my thoughts was, "what if you could just make
this program run and trade automatically?" I think a lot of people had the same thought.
Where has this laziness taken us? (I left after 6 months go to law school but that's another
story).
I see this thought trap how to be more lazy as sort of an alienation that happens when you
don't have to think about what you're doing anymore but how to get around it, and that gets
passed on to others who see that you don't really have to "work" but that it's more about
being clever enough to come up with a solution that pushes the whole process of being
responsible, reflective and hard working on to something – or more likely someone
– else.
I sometimes think we live in a world like Jerry Lewis in the Disorderly Orderly where he's
the only sane one in the asylum, constantly tripped up by insanity from doing the job of an
orderly.
As of incompetence the Brits bought some corona-tests which were just crap.
Seven-And-A-Half million tests just for the bin.
That's were the incompetence has it's home nowadays: 10 Downing St. If everything goes
according to plan, the Brits will be redeemed from the incompetence reigning there in these
days.
I think you hit some critical points about "spreadsheet models" and their disconnection
with reality. Unfortunately, it's not just the business and finance world that's struggling
here. I've seen serious failures along these lines in science and engineering as well.
Unfortunately even experts in those fields (who should know better), routinely interpret
model results very uncritically.
Like with business and finance, I believe the availability of computers for calculation
and plotting has made scientists and engineers a lot more prone to misinterpreting their
results or the results of others. I believe visualization of data via plotting software may
actually facilitate uncritical interpretation of that data. ("Seeing is believing". ) Before
computers, technicians had to construct plots by hand, which often involved close study of
the raw data to determine the best design for conveying that data.
Then there's also the problem of romantization of computation. Particularly recently, a
great many people (technical or otherwise) erroneously assume that a more complicated model
or a model that relies on a broader range of data input will produce more accurate results.
In reality, models involve *abstraction* of real things into data, which often requires
making assumptions and/or discarding information. Proper interpretation of the model results
requires taking the process of abstraction into account, but this is rarely done properly and
is often impractical when complicated models or heterogeneous data sets are involved.
Yet another problem is that scientist and engineer livelihoods often depend more on
abstract deliverables like "peer reviewed" papers (academia), reports, presentations,
demonstrations, etc. The target audience is typically either a non-specialist manager or a
specialist who doesn't have enough time to give proper critical attention to the work anyway.
Hence, there is great incentive to produce "results" for their own sake and typically fewer
negative consequences to the person (in terms of career / money) for "getting it wrong" than
for "failing to deliver".
For me these things are fundamental to the reason that I'm not in a satisfying technical
career. I could have made a whole career out of doing sciency bullshit. I had a very
successful and well-connected Ph.D. advisor and could have been one of a lucky few to score a
"tenure-track" position without doing post-doc work. Unfortunately every time I raised
concerns about the integrity of the methods, he would blow me off with "we can talk
philosophy another time". All he wanted to talk about was how to present the "results" for
maximum "impact". Success in that and many other "scientific" fields depends on marketing
over integrity, and someone such as myself who values integrity will struggle to match
productive output (in terms of prestige and career development) with those who just want to
"win".
I should clarify that I don't believe all scientific fields (or sub-fields, really) are
incompetent as I describe above. I know many aren't. And it's a bit of a mystery to me why
some are very tight and others are full of nonsense. I don't have a good answer.
When the dust settles I do think the scientific establishment will have a lot of hard
questions to answer. The response from official science bodies and advisors has often been
terrible (not just with the face mask debacle). Among other issues, I think a fake form of
'scientism' has taken hold whereby models based on dubious assumptions are treated as a form
of reality.
Nicholas Nassim Taleb has a paper out on the topic of models. His maths is way beyond my
poor skills, but the general point he is making is that there are fundamental problems with
models that extrapolate from past events poorly – in particular the often inbuilt
assumption that the worst case scenario is the worst previous event. There is an entertaining
explainer from a maths teacher in this article .
This is not an easy issue. If one is to review the scientific literature, there was no
lack of risk warnings from specialized scientific sources on the possibilities of new
SARS-like outbreaks. I also believe there were scientists that from the very beginning
worried about this. Once we saw how the outburst in Hubei evolved and watched coming data,
surely many could go and check that we were confronting a new guy with a very different
epidemiological and clinical behaviour compared with SARS. I am not at the forefront in
science but i recall commenting this a couple of months ago here, so I can guess some many
others did exactly the same. I don't think we were short on scientists able to do a good job
on risk assessment. Particularly scientists working in public institutions. What's the
problem then? I believe part of it is that we collectively turn a deaf ear to them. I noticed
from the very beginning a focus on the clinical aspects of the disease but almost full
blindness regarding the analysis of the epidemics. I think it possible that authorities in
Western countries took HC experts for advice to their tables but these experts had no idea on
epidemiology so they could barely give counseling on the dynamics of the outbreak and
couldn't predict the speed of the spread. If someone tried to notice this would have been
received with disbelief as all here were in negationist mood. Still many are. Also, I believe
tha many thought this was a Chinese thing and felt comfort on the fact that Chinese
authorities seemed to control it. Control, hah!
There is a parallel in union organizing. Old school organizers do their workplace charts,
listing every employee, their relationships to one another, and tracking their support for
the union, by hand. Doing so helps makes the organizer retain this "map" in their head.
Younger organizers (myself included) tend to substitute databases and spreadsheets for the
old hand-drawn version. Not saying these are entirely ineffective–I can speak from
experience that they are not. Rather that the pervasiveness of the technological change is
across many boundaries. Woe to the revolutionaries who use a google sheet!
A lot of useful things have already been said, not least by Yves, and I won't repeat them.
But if you think about it there are a whole series of different issues here, and it's
important not to mix them up. For example: how the virus got started, why it spread so
quickly, whether it should have been anticipated, whether it was prepared for, what was
assumed about it, what was done, how quickly it was done, whether the consequences
(especially economic) were foreseen etc. etc. If you're going to argue incompetence (which I
think there has been) you also have to have some idea of what would have constituted a
competent reaction. Simply comparing countries doesn't really help, because there are too
many variables, especially political and administrative ones: the US and China would not and
could not have reacted in the same way, for example. So Italy, for example, has always had a
weak state (to the point where many Italians have seen the EU as their salvation) and this is
probably a more important factor than many more technical ones.
If there's a common thread that links all of these elements, it's dissociation from reality,
which is also the cause of the incompetence on display. Globalization, for example,
responsible for the speed of the spread and much of the economic dislocation, could only have
been forced on the world by people who did not know about, or were indifferent to, the likely
consequences. Some of this dissociation comes just from wealth and power of course (how to
travel the world and see nothing) but some of it comes from ideology. For globalists, and
neoliberals generally, the idea that the market will adjust to meet any short-term
requirements (like masks) is not a simplification in a textbook but a statement of belief.
So, even if globalists were aware that masks, testing kits and ventilators were no longer
made domestically, they would have replied that it didn't matter because the market
would provide.
A corollary of the above is that, if the market will always provide, then there's no real
reason to plan or provision anything, provided you can buy it fast enough when you have to.
Thus, all organizations should concentrate on being as small and "flexible" as possible,
doing only those things that are essential, and thus in turn the stifling obsession with
process and organizational change to the exclusion of actually, you know, doing things, which
is the characteristic of our MBA-ised culture.
And finally, popular and political culture is no longer about anything. Children's books and
TV are purged of anything that might seem threatening, and even adults demand a life free
from even the possibility that something might happen that upsets them. We no longer have the
vocabulary and cultural references to handle collective grief and trauma. Our elites, for the
first time in history, have no personal experience of genuine crisis or deprivation, and,
since the 90s politics and PR have become effectively indistinguishable. Politics has
degenerated into a classically Liberal struggle for power between groups, and political
society is divided into smaller and smaller warring tribes, defined by skin color or genital
arrangement, competing for the spoils.
There's a lot more that could be said but I won't presume any more on the patience of others.
Essentially, though we have been living in Dreamland, and, for all that our elites may think
they've been cleverly manipulating us, they have been faster asleep than anyone. Our elite
and popular cultures, in other words, have long been full of shit. And that mess you see is
what happens when it hits the fan.
Thats a hell of a meaty post, lots to chew on there and I'd agree with all of it. This
virus really has identified the weak spot of so many institutional systems. Its a genuine
game changer in so many ways. It will be fascinating (and not a little terrifying) to be able
to observe this in real time.
And finally, popular and political culture is no longer about anything. Children's books
and TV are purged of anything that might seem threatening, and even adults demand a life
free from even the possibility that something might happen that upsets them. We no longer
have the vocabulary and cultural references to handle collective grief and trauma. Our
elites, for the first time in history, have no personal experience of genuine crisis or
deprivation, and, since the 90s politics and PR have become effectively
indistinguishable.
I belong to some playwrights groups (one is a kind of old-fashioned list-serv). Many of
the writers are waiting for this to blow over, so that they can go back to submitting the
same old, same old. Then they may get a production in which the playwright's background is
made much of. The work of art matters much less than the world of P.R. that now surrounds the
typical rising U.S. writer, playwright, or painter.
What so many of these people don't get is that the New Rococo is over. As you say, "Our
elite and popular cultures, have long been full of shit." It has been fifty or more years of
Rococo paintings of doilies and flourishes and word-salad on stage.
I have these days been writing on a theory that is flying around like an evasive butterfly
on the conditions that may have been at the root of this and other recent outbreaks. I am
replying to your comment because this is the first question in your well organized set of
questions. I think this post touches many points that merit an in depth view and I like yours
as well as many other comments here that add more insights. It seems to me very few are
dedicating a single neurone to these arguments or at least I can only find them at NC.
As for the origin of Covid-19 I have read a solid narrative that says the origin could be
the vulnerabilities of industrial farming practices in China. The world's largest producer of
pork meat suffered in 2019 a devastating African swine fever outbreak that decimated hogs and
very much reduced the most important source for meat production in China. Whether this
resulted in a significant increase in wild animal farming and traffic is not clear because
China doesn't provide data on this. Anyway it could be the case that such hidden practices,
that I think were encouraged by Chinese leadership, could have increased by a lot during 2019
becoming an important business by itself and a relevant source for food in Chinese markets.
This could have increased by much the possibility of a zoonotic outbreak like this.
thanks david ("our elite and popular cultures have long been full of shit"). I'm thinking
we are far too aggressive as a species to stop to examine our equally aggressive fantasies.
What we do best when we are not daydreaming is fight, usually without thinking it through.
(So what happened to that instinct when it comes to fighting a virus? We couldn't switch back
from the daydream in time?) We are either in some bloody confrontation or we are indulging
ourselves in escape. We are totally bipolar. Economically as well. I recommend mandatory
therapy, starting with members of Congress. And it wouldn't hurt to use our instincts as
capitalists right now to do a government sponsored program to produce testing equipment that
is reliable and can be distributed to every household. (Why is Capitalism so AWOL? It doesn't
look like the fault of capitalism, it looks more like the absence of capitalism.) Likewise
for first treatment – if it's hydroxychloroquine every household should have a current
supply. We really shouldn't rely on our schmoozer-in-chief to jet off to India at the very
last moment and cut a deal for drugs – which promptly get confiscated by the Indian
Government. I mean duh.
I deal with a lot of computer modeling, but am also old enough to know how it used to be
done with design charts etc. before computeres were available. The design charts were
developed using human computers like shown in "Hidden Figures". So I spend time with the
junior engineers and scientists teaching them about how the entire infrastructure that they
use daily was designed before computers were even available.
The first thing I look at when somebody gives me calculations is how many significant
digits they are reporting the answer to. If there are more than 1 or 2 after the decimal
place, I go through the entire thing with a fine tooth comb, because that means they don't
understand significant digits and the inherent limitations of modeling and are just
regurgitating whatever the computer spits out at them. There are often significant
errors.
If somebody gives me something to look at that has a detailed computer analysis reported
to one or two decimal places and checked with a simple design chart to ensure order of
magnitude correctness, it is much easier to check and is invariably more than likely to be
usable.
Italy has an historical weakness with the national state structures, and if we look at
national stereotypes we are supposed to be naturally messy and disordered.This is reflected
in our own expression "fare le cose all'italiana" ( to do things the italian way ) , which is
used when somebody acts in a range of ways going from messy , to corrupt ,to shallow ,to
disorganised, to tricky.
As for our political and practical management of the Covid crisis, I see now rolling on the
usual controversies among the factions of decision-makers, such as the ping-pong of blame
between the Lombardy governor and the central government. The issue below ,in my view, is
that NHS was regionalized , hence making it difficult a real joint effort and a joint
national policy, and any decision on the ground was the result of a political wrestling
between them .If there is some link with the article issue is that I tend to think that all
the fundamental policies that have been implemented and publicized in the last decades in
Italy were based on the idea and ideology of the external constraint . If you go on saying
that whatever you are actually doing as a ruling class is because of some external
constraint, you are saying that in the end you are not really responsible of you do in front
of your citizens.This has little to do with the economical structure, or if it has something
to do I don't see it at first sight.
I stopped a long time ago to try to understand whether or not the death count criteria were
worldwide standardised, so I apologize if I'm saying nonsense with the following : when in my
country death toll was approx ten times less than now, I remember that Italian HPA came out
with the official digits that , with 1266 deaths of people with Covid, 2 deaths were with
Covid alone.
A simple and probably useless idea is the effect the jet airplane and it's compression of
time has had an effect on top dog thinking, creating an illusion of being able to simply
avoid risk by running from it. We might also have hit a fulcrum point with financioneers
running out of countries to easily exploit and razzle dazzle although traditional legacy
media may have hit a ditch in the road the googoylemonstyr is simply still just a glorified
electronic yellow pages and bookfaze is the excuse used to explain bad and failed
systemization in media operations There are many outlets for information gathering and most
people outside the oecd have been imf-ed in recent enough history to not be so easily
mesmerized by promises of some mythical sparkle pony happy ending
Finally perhaps also the eloquent ignorance of your correct observation of the notion one
can simply PR problems past the newshole and blurb past the facts. There are more lobbyists
and PR flax then have ever existed in most parts of the world.
Lastly, and perhaps it is just new to moi, but it would appear, despite the facts most
countries outside the big three have multi party parliamentary systems, most have adjusted to
a simple two party system with the hand offs then followed with a loud and proud but "loyal
approved" opposition
"In the remote era of my youth, even in the prestigious firms, new hires were subjected to
at least a couple of years of grunt work."
I think this is hugely important. I'm a big fan of Lave and Wenger's theory of legitimate
peripheral participation: basically that becoming an expert at something requires
apprenticing to a community of practice possessing large amounts expertise, and doing
increasingly consequential tasks until one gains expertise.
I think one major – perhaps the major – casualty of the symbolic economy was
that there isn't any simple way to quantify the years (and in some cases decades) of
apprenticeship it takes to become highly competent at a highly complex, highly consequential
set of responsibilities. Expertise is obviously highly valuable, but let some other suckers
or universities do the training, or substitute a credential, amiright ;)
I'm curious to hear from those of a certain age who are experts at something or other. My
guess is that you can all name a handful of people without whom you never would have attained
your current level of expertise, and that you cannot name a comparable number of young people
that you have similar opportunities to mentor.
In many ways I think this virus has been adept at exposing the weaknesses in nearly every
countries system. In China, the policy of governing by way of top down directives,
interpreted in varying ways by local governments ensured that the initial response was to
suppress news of the outbreak rather than deal with it aggressively. In South Korea the
problem was stubborn religious extremists. In japan, a sclerotic and over-rigid bureaucracy.
In the US, all three.
There are six fundamental questions to which there are two fundamental answers; or there
are 479,001,600 permutations that might describe a given circumstance. Taken one at a time,
each permutation is partially correct, 1/479,001,600. Your thoughts here avoid the error of
examining the errors made in dealing with the pandemic by examining one error at a time and
focus on the factor set that drove the errors. There is no simple single factor to be
altered. There is a factor set that consists of several risks ignored. There is no benefit,
at this moment, in fault finding. Here and now, we need massive testing, we need at least one
reliable treatment regime, and most importantly we need a vaccine. Once we have those things
we can then examine who decided what and hopefully we can examine what we need to do to
preserve protect and defend the grand American experiment in political economy. Our
Constitution calls for a Federal Republic that employs democratic means to achieve a
representative government of, by and for, the people. As my high school civic teacher taught,
you have to read all the words and a multifaceted thing cannot be described by citing only
one of the facets. Consider the recent event, Hillary won the vote and lost the election.
Your thoughts here address much of what we should be contemplating as individuals and as a
society. One might differ with you with respect to one or more of the components; but, taken
all together, you point to a cancer that needs to be eradicated. Thank you.
Ultimately, it's a case of power corrupts. Thinking through all of the above, it was all
enabled by people in power thinking they could get away with something, trying it and then
knowing they can do whatever they want. The power they held let them put greed first, and the
lack of real potential deprivation or threats led them to make money (as opposed to
self-sufficiency or equality or sustainability) the new god. After all, since when has money
not delivered? This is the first time in a long time that money can't buy safety. As Stoller
has said on Twitter, the Fed can't print a vaccine.
The corrective is accountability, or as vlade said, feedback. Elites can't just sit in their
offices, mansions and private jets all day and fail upward, or sideways at worst. We had a
little crisis not 12 years ago, but there was no accountability. So here we are.
Their preparedness did not come from SARS, but from MERS in 2015. That one ended up
killing 30 people, not much these days but enough for a large scare. It included hundreds of
school closures and the like – it looked much larger at the time. There was also a huge
scandal, when it turned out that medical institutions had been hiding infections, and this
added to the scare.
The current Korean epidemic response system was set up after that – it's just a few
years old. It is not deeply rooted in their history or culture or something
Yes, I'd agree with this – in fact, this is precisely what the Koreans authorities
themselves are saying. There is a lot of nonsense being talked about 'confucian values' and
so on – the reality is that South Korea was on much higher alert because of its recent
history (similarly with Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam). This isn't to dismiss the excellent
quality of the response which reflects very well on their government institutions and people,
but a lot of outsiders are reading far too much into it.
Perhaps another Minksy-like pro-cyclical flaw in our current system is underestimating the
marginal cost of incompetence. We can socialize the cost of the occasional minor disaster
made worse by incompetence. Ditto for socializing the occasional cost of a parasitical
rentier class. As with all short term thinking, it works until it doesn't.
As you point out, things like offshoring further undermine our ability to assess costs
(ex. to the local workers, environment). Out of sight, out of mind.
I want to say that a portion of the electorate bear some responsibility here. In addition
to the moneyed influencers, enough of the electorate agreed to put these officials in office.
In the calculus of what the voters thought they stood to lose or gain, they believed they
came out ahead.
Great post. My dad used to say "nothing beats experience" and when I was a younger know it
all–lover of books and libraries–I scoffed. But now I know he was absolutely
right. "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy." The people making the
decisions are divorced from the results and the real world that most citizens live
in–from experience. And so we've gone from a country with a genius for the
practical–"heroic materialism" Kenneth Clark called it–to one where the elites
are going through the motions until it all falls in. It may be falling now.
I'd like to throw a perspective that could be seen as CT onto the barbie, grill away.
This is a use of Howard Becker's Machine Trick: Design the machine that will produce that
result your analysis indicates occurs routinely in the situation you have studied.
This assumes that results are (at least in part) due to the machines functioning exactly
as intended. National differences of responses are a result of different de-facto
policies.
I. The Big Picture.
Rule #2: Go die!
There is a actuarial perspective that letting people die has a net benefit.
The Greeks and Malthus were aware of overpopulation problems. 1972's Limits to Growth
showed that famine was not the trigger for population crash, pollution was. They modelled a
crash date of 2055. The climate crisis is quickening.
The elite case for lowering life expectancy has been established:
: Tobacco Giant's Analysis Says Premature Deaths Cut Costs in Pensions and Health Care :
Critics Assail Philip Morris Report on Smoking
[nytimes.com/2001/07/18/news/tobacco-giants-analysis-says-premature-deaths-cut-costs-in-pensions-and.html]
Note that COVID-19 targets the same demographic that the Philip Morris report does.
Targeting high-energy_usage high-capital_liability individuals give good ROI both in climate
and financial terms. This brings in
II. The Middle Shark
Actions speak louder than words. Those with access to elite information behaved
differently within the US. Feb 28 the President used the word Hoax, four days later the Fed
put the crisis on the same level as 9/11 and the Lehmann fall.
Rule #1: Because markets.
Suppressing the response, both in public perception and in ER's, gave time for the
decisionmakers behind the politicians to array their responses. The selfless perspective is
this is a geostrategic eruption that must be tended. The venal symptom is elites had time to
dump their stocks.
III. The Immediate Threat
A nanoscopic enemy, less than half the size an N95 shield targets. Asymptomatic
invisibility, the false negative/positive problems of tests (if you can get them), the
horrors of the ventilated. A real threat.
I had previously said that, with the obfuscation and miscategorization systematically
skewing downward the perceived incidence of an already blurred enemy, we would have to look
at all-cause deaths to really understand the proximate and ultimate mortality. I did not see
falling death rates coming. In a complex world there are paradoxical effects. So any evil
geniuses are gonna get really frustrated when their plans go awry.
We can already see the opportunistic authoritarians hard at work. I'll close with a couple
paragraphs of Boyd, but first a reminder. This comment is a perspective on why some countries
had a less-lethal response to this virus than others. In a complex world, simple explanations
are incomplete. Boyd:
Remember what I said, without a crisis, they don't have an operation. They've got to have
that crisis. Remember what I said last night? Without anomalies, no mismatch. No mismatch,
no
crisis. Without a crisis, no change.
Remember I said that crisis is important to them because then they can insert, work the
propaganda, tear apart, generate these many non-cooperative centers of gravity.
Yves, you say leaders are showing their incompetence managing two jobs, their medical
response to Coronavirus and their management of countries' economies. I suggest that
perspective can be gained by stepping back further and looking at a bigger job than those two
tasks. How well are humans managing the planet's response to the threat of potential human
extinction caused by extreme planetary warming (too quickly returning to PET-M).
Where I'm headed: collectivism vs. individualism.
It appears to me that an adequate planetary response (If it isn't already too late. That's a
separate discussion.) to the threat of potential human extinction would require a giant
collectivist response. Almost all countries would need to be collectively acting together.
E.g., efforts would fail if a major economy like China or the U.S. continued its polluting
ways.
However, it appears most of our leaders are not collectivists. They appear, instead, to be
individualists who have fought their way to the top by competing against other highly
competitive individualists. Is it in the nature of individualist leaders to seek and join
collectivist activities? Are our leaders actively seeking to join an adequate (rather than
symbolic) collectivist planetary effort to reverse climate change?
Instead, it appears our leaders aim to be among the "winners" who will win by being among
the survivors in their bunkers in the Hamptons or New Zealand.
I'm wondering about how much the culture of collectivist action, collectivist values, in
various countries' medical systems has played in managing their response to Coronavirus. How
much has (predatory) individualism contributed to the incompetent management of
economies?
We humans have it in our nature to seek narratives, stories, that "explain" what we are
witnessing. Stories simplify explanations. Stories give comfort to our minds. We crave that
comfort. The two heroes in your two stories are 1.) losing sight of risk and 2.) using
symbols to separate leaders/actors from reality. IMHO those are excellent heroes.
Is it reasonable to expect successive generations of individualist humans/leaders to
maintain a focus on risk after previous generations appear to have insulated them from
previously known risks? I suggest that a collectivist culture would be much more vigilant
about identifying risk and preparing for it. For example, the collectivist U.S. military has
done considerable work recognizing and preparing for the risks of climate change.
Is it reasonable to expect individualist (predatory) leaders to competently manage the
economy of a country when they're so busy preying on their respective parts of the economy?
Individualists have found a giant tool, symbols substituted for reality, to exploit/prey on
the economies they live in. Is it reasonable to expect those individualists to give up their
competitive predatory tools to embrace collectivist ways to manage economies for the benefit
of all people in their respective economies?
Thanks for this great post, Yves. Managers, CEOS, and politicians losing any sense of risk
or real dangers sounds right. Promoting people incompetent or unfit for task isn't a problem
if there is no risk or danger. They've become the managerial/political equivalent of the
anti-vaxers: they believe no danger can touch them because no danger ever has (so far).
As a young person starting out in the work world, I was as said above, given the
opportunity to do "grunt" work. Put another way, like the old world apprentice system, I was
given the opportunity to understand the mechanics of work before moving on to such things as
planning and strategizing.
Early in my education I had troubles with math. Someone told me to think of numbers as
things, or put another way, every number stood for something in the "real world". Once I
understood this, every math problem could be visualized as a real world thing/concept. After
learning this I learned to love math, and to apply it well. Word problems referred to real
things. Logic and problem solving, thru math, was real. Moving forward to the work world, and
with the move from mainframe computers (which I worked with), to PC's, I became proficient in
very complex spreadsheets, creating them, maintining them, and undertaking complex analysis
with them. But, and someone above hit on this well, unlike today where the numbers are the
thing, or end product, I always envisoned them and understood them, each and every one of
them, as just being a representation of a real thing in the real world. This I think sets my
work generation apart from how things are done today. The loss of connection between numbers
and real things is I think what Yves is referring to as how people have become distanced from
risk and by default, it almost becomes "not risk".
Lastly, when I was younger I always had a need to understand the real world aspects of
anything I did. I had a job in analytics/logistics at an Oil & Gas company, one aspect
was gasoline blending. It wasn't good enough to get reports from the field for me, I had to
go out to the field and see, touch and discuss the actual work. I loved going to
manufacturing plants (refineries), and to the oil rigs. I had to understand everything
because how else can you do the "administrative/planning" side of things if you don't have an
intimate relationship with the actual thing?
Anyway, great post. It isn't the USA, it isn't capitalism, it is a deeper change in society
that knows no boundary or ideology.
kinda like there should only be one number, lets call it 3, and the size of it tells us
everything about the world we live in – so a big 3 is extremely important and requires
mobilization in some way, whereas a little 3 can be dealt with on a smaller scale ;-)
An old (both ways) friend took up CNC work at a local maker space a while back. After a
year or so he is good enough at it to be able to take orders for custom parts, but is now
getting to the 'real world' of numbers. He is, to his indignation, awe, and utter delight,
grappling with calculating the rate of taper he needs for some part, "Cotan, sine, tan --
it's trigonometry !"
There is simply no risk in the game for elites. Trump was slow to act because his risk was
that the stock market would be hurt by his action. He was free to wait because the stock
market would get a bailout in the end. The lives of the public were less important and still
are. The opinion polls of the voting class are all that matter.
The elites have very successfully bought off the voting class by making them small and
insignificant players in the game via the 401(k). They readily take the risk off of elites
because they are taking it off of themselves. They identify with elites and see them as their
protectors.
I think that the dereliction of duty by state actors is a something to be examined in
depth. Unfortunately, I am not today in the mood for doing the thinking effort this post
merits. I would have wanted to think on one of the symptoms of failure (widespread denialism)
and contrast it with the many good observations made in the post. The quarantine and some
personal stress has lately been a shock for me. Unfortunately some of my worst worries have
come true. I was writing something that could be interesting on the conditions that favoured
this outbreak but now I am not sure I can finish it.
Please take care. I am pretty sure I will still need this site to check for some common
sense, good, sensible and critical thinking plus relief from the too abundant disingenuous
widespread disinformation. So I insist, you gals and guys take a lot of care for
yourselves.
Widespread denialism is not hard to figure. Contemporary ruling classes and attached
elites have no regard for honesty and truth, so they lie to the people as default practice.
The people for whom they have so much contempt are smart enough to figure out that they are
being lied to. Given that the authorities cannot be trusted, one might as well believe
anything one wants.
Why the Czech Republic isn't bottom of the barrel, I certainly wouldn't hold us up as
exemplary case either. There are problems with protective equipment as everywhere else, the
testing regime is grossly lagging, contract tracing is nonexistent and just today the leading
epidemiologist and sort of top state science guy for this whole thing floated the idea we
should let 70 % population who are low-risk contract the virus without explaining how he
thinks this could be done without everyone else catching it too.
I would not depict you as exaggerating about the change in posture toward risks. This was
a very good essay. The change in posture about risks was enabled because typically big
political donars (smallish minority) get bailed out of their troubles while those with lessor
political influence (the working poor and middle class) get crushed.
BTW, seduction is the one thing Pres. Trump is really good at. Every news conference of
his I happen to catch (not my objective), it is marvelous, fascinating to watch how he
operates to seduce. It is what he does, even more fundamental than lying.
The lack of investment in public health has been so long standing that it is not the least
surprising to me that the USA has done poorly in pandemic preparation. I knew we had deeply
compromised capacity to respond. I am rather surprised by all the valient fighting for lives
now going on by many health care workers and a few politicians. To me, I feel there is a
mustard seed of humanism and hope in this world because we've purposely crashed our economies
to try and slow transmission, save lives and health care from imploding totally. It is not a
uniform sentiment, but it exists. It surprises me and am glad for it. Still, the
disadvantaged are going to fare worse, suffer worse on account of the risks that others
neglected.
we've had a Minsky-like process operating on a society-wide basis: as daily risks have
declined, most people have blinded themselves to what risk amounts to and where it might
surface in particularly nasty forms. And the more affluent and educated classes, who
disproportionately constitute our decision-makers, have generally been the most
removed.
I see something very similar happening in academia. We align our identities with our
institutions and think in very a short-term, metric-based fashion, seeing "success" (for
instance) in terms of student recruitment (tuition fees paid in). Moreover, we're encouraged
above all to be global in outlook: we look forward to our perennially "busy" international
conference seasons and we emphasise the global and the transnational over the merely local or
national (denigrated as narrow, provincial, and ideologically suspect). We like to see
ourselves as mobile subjects, bodies in constant motion, our minds Romantically untethered
from the confines of any one nation state.
So our identities as academics are unavoidably embedded in a form of neoliberal hyperglobalisation. We rely on unrestricted flows of (wealthy) bodies across borders. Our
institutions (or many of them) have become dependent on international students and their
superior fee-paying ability compared with merely "domestic students." We might agree in
principle with ideas of a GND, say, or take an ecocritical approach to a novel or a play, but
we're certainly not going to cut back on the number of international conferences we attend.
Indeed, many of us go further. We see this form of globalisation, and the benefits that
accrue to us and our institutions from it, as a form of moral necessity : something it
isn't possible even to argue against in good faith. Hence our loud assent to principles like
open borders and always-on mass migration. We have to keep those lucrative international
students flooding in, after all. (Not that we'd ever put it in terms as crassly material as
that; after all, we don't work in university administration .)
Our commitment to the global as a form of moral mission has left us completely unprepared
for what's currently unfolding. We are utterly unused to considering the material constraints
of the economy our livelihoods depend on; that globalisation might come back to bite us; that
the very aircraft that carry us across the world to conference destinations and field work
sites would one day turn off the spigot of endlessly mobile bodies our careers and identities
depend on. Hence the reason why a lot of my colleagues are so lost right now. They're so used
to living on a purely symbolic (or moral-symbolic) level that the materiality of this virus
and its consequences seems like a crude insult. Many stubbornly hold on to their old
commitments, unwilling to admit that the world might have changed. In this respect, I think
of this post over
at Crooked Timber, where John Quiggin (an economist I have a great deal of respect for)
simply cannot bring himself to confront the possibility that the open borders dream might be
dead.
Where we go from here, I have no idea. But the fact that international and Erasmus
students might be gone for the foreseeable future, and the major implications this will have
for the financial viability or our universities, seems to be slowly sinking in. But the fact
that the "export education" model was a disastrous wrong turn will take much longer to be
accepted, I think, because of the widespread commitment I've been talking about here to the
principle of the global as a form of moral necessity.
Intriguing question and hypothesis regarding the reasons behind the variability in
coronavirus infection and mortality rates among nations.
Variable coronavirus outcomes by nation could suggest a combination of elite incompetence,
poor individual judgment, a lack of appreciation of risk in all its Rumsfeldian forms,
corruption, a desire by oligarchs for autocratic control and being insulated and divorced
from actual operations; or underlying cultural and economic factors.
It could also suggest
that other factors either singularly or in combination played a role, including
intentionality based on misjudgment of the agnostic nature of the virus regardless of
demographics, economics and social class; or simply denial of an emerging public health
threat by political leadership that reflected their own psychological characteristics and
cognitive biases that led to a two month delay in implementing containment and control policy
measures.
While they played a role, don't know that blaming the variability among nations entirely
on a narrow set of insular public and private sector leaders who relied on computer
spreadsheets to assess ROI, NPV of alternatives, payback periods, cost vs. benefit analysis,
JIT inventory management of PPE; and the guidance of financial markets is an all-encompassing
answer. Why exactly did they rely on those spreadsheets?
My own view is that we can trace the root cause of policy failure back to the dominant
values of leadership and the values of the society/culture which spawned them regarding the
relative importance of money in determining policy choices regarding public health and
safety.
Unfortunately I expect the social and economic effects of this pandemic and the policy
choices that increased its severity are going to be with us for some time.
The U.S. was not adequately prepared for the current coronavirus pandemic and needs to
address the lack of planning to better prepare for future crises, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said Monday.
In his annual letter to shareholders, Dimon said he hoped America will "roll up its
sleeves" and start to attack its problems, including a costly health-care system, unequal
access to education, a litigation and regulatory system that burdens small business, failed
immigration policies, and ineffective infrastructure, among shortcomings. The share of wages
for the bottom 30% of Americans has been falling, he said, a problem that needs to be
acknowledged if it is to be fixed
"There should have been a pandemic playbook," he wrote.
Likewise, he added, every problem he noted "should have detailed and nonpartisan solutions."
" 'While conditions may sometimes be unusual and difficult, we are functioning smoothly. In
fact, over the last month in certain parts of our company, we've had the highest volume and
transaction totals we have ever seen.'
The media were just as much in denial as the White House was: Who's
Right: Donald Trump or the Media? - Amren I've seen this posted everywhere; article after article in the mainstream media telling
us to stop worrying about the coronavirus.
The epidemic revealed that there is a lot of incompetence on all levels: The
Death of American Competence - Stephan Walt - Foreign Policy Washington's reputation for expertise has been one of the greatest sources of its
power. The coronavirus pandemic may end it for good.
The long delay in the U.S. reaction has led to a urgent need for personal protection
equipment. The result is a new 'wild west' where stealing and cheating to get PPE is the new
norm:
The neoliberal transformation of the state is also on display with regards to the
distribution of medical supplies. The USG is distributing much needed supplies to private
commercial entities, which then play off various states, municipalities and hospitals against
each other in bidding wars. This is what "public-private partnerships" and "new public
management" have led to: a thorough abdication of institutional responsibility and
capacity-building by the state, which itself has been devoured internally by market
principles.
Without an analysis of capitalism as the central issue in the American crisis we can't
understand how things are playing out.
Stephen Walt gets many things right but he has no sense of the political economy of the
American crisis.
Why? Because his realist theory is bereft of any sociology and political economy.
The thing with the billionaires is that they have demanded and benefitted from the
hollowing out of the state in the neoliberal period, and then they exploit moments of state
crisis to reassert their "importance" (and our dependence on them).
So he sounded the alarm, sending a letter to 19 senior military officials. The gist of that
letter was a recommendation to disembark and isolate the Roosevelt's crew, treating those
infected and subjecting the entire ship to a thorough cleaning to eliminate the virus. "We are
not at war," Crozier wrote. "Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing
to properly take care of our most trusted asset -- our Sailors." While the ship's operational
readiness would momentarily suffer, Crozier was intent on ensuring that none of the men and
women under his command would "perish as a result of this pandemic unnecessarily."
Today, of course, many Americans are dying unnecessarily through the negligence of leaders
at all levels. In the weeks to come, negligence will claim the lives of many more. Crozier
stands out as one leader who was quick to assess the danger at hand and to recommend prompt and
decisive action.
For this he was fired. Needless to say, his letter leaked. Navy officials were thereby
embarrassed. While eventually taking the actions not unlike those that Crozier had recommended,
they gave him the axe. According to acting Navy secretary Thomas B. Modly, himself a Naval
Academy graduate, Crozier lost his job because the Coronavirus outbreak "overwhelmed his
ability to act professionally."
That's one opinion. Mine differs. Faced with a perplexing leadership challenge, Crozier made
a very tough call: This was one instance, he concluded, where Men should come before Mission,
while he unhesitatingly placed his own career interests last. His superiors, up to and
including Acting Secretary Modly, ought to have applauded his actions. That they did not calls
into question their own good judgment.
... ... ...
Of course, my own opinion matters not at all. On the other hand, my guess is that for
Crozier the opinion of his sailors matters quite a lot. As he left his ship for the last time,
in a moving display of support for their former skipper, they gathered spontaneously to give
him a rousing sendoff. Crozier left with their cheers ringing in their ears. The men and women
assigned to the USS Theodore Roosevelt know professionalism when they see it.
Another point of discussion here is The Mission. Me thinks the mission of TR was to show
force, intimidate and cower the Chinese. A very worthwhile job in the time of pandemic.
While the good captain said that the US is not at war, maybe the higher ups know better and
the US is indeed at war with a handful of countries in that area... and in that case The
Mission must take precedence, eh?!
BUT if he had killed civilians, taken pictures with their dead bodies, had every member of
his unit testify against him and been found guilty of war crimes, Trump would have his
back!
He didn't even inform his immediate superior, who lived feet away. He communicated outside
his chain-of-command classified information (yes, mission-readiness is classified.) He
absolutely should have been fired, and also brought up on charges. I expect this guy got
his foot in the door to command via his fealty to Obama, instead of his actual suitability
for command.
Crozier graduated from the Naval Academy in 1992. In his 28 years of military service he's
been a rotary wing pilot (SH-60s), a fixed wing pilot (F-18s), been the exec (second in
command) of a Nimitz-class carrier USS Ronald Reagan), and the the captain of a major ship
(USS Blue Ridge) (Command of a CVN requires both aviation and ship command; his career path
is typical of those groomed for command of a CVN). He's a graduate of the Naval War
College.
I'll go out on a limb here, but considering his background I'm comfortable thinking that
CAPT Crozier understands the chain of command, OPSEC, formal vs informal means of
communication, who to address a message or email to, what items should be and shouldn't be
in an unclassified email, realized the Carrier Battle Group's commander was embarked along
with him and he could walk down the hall to discuss concerns with him, and all the other
items people are raising.
The question should be why did someone with his background and experience consider it
necessary in a peacetime deployment to act as he did to protect his crew, taking actions he
had to have known would result in his being relieved of command and sacrificing his career.
If those above him considered the sickness and death of a number of his crew, along with
reducing the ship and its embarked air wing to an ineffective token, to be an unavoidable
but necessary price to pay for the boat to continue on its deployment without alteration
they need to come forward and say so. I have yet to read any rationale from the navy's
civilian leadership (or military, for that matter; the CNO's office has been silent) where
they have done anything other than note how bad he made them look.
I believe that Colonel Bacevich is right on point with one small error. That is that
Captain Crozier's action wasn't necessarily placing mission behind the men. The Navy will
keep it secret, of course, but a carrier underway with a large fraction of its crew sick,
to some degree, is just as non-mission capable as one sitting in port.
Captain Crozier was in an untenable catch-22 situation. Would the USS Roosevelt have suffered a similar casualty if it's skipper
stayed within his chain of command in attempting to address the burgeoning virus aboard that very well may have impacted it's crews
ability to operate safely? Capt Crozier's naval career was damned if he did and damned if he didn't (ie catch-22). Capt
Crozier made the right decision in putting the health/lives of sailors aboard the Roosevelt ahead of 7th Fleets need to check boxes.
Notable quotes:
"... I am circling around to the view that Crozier's actions were correct, honorable, and laudable, and that they also created a situation that made it impossible for the Navy, notwithstanding the current occupant of the White House, to keep him in his position. ..."
"... The difference between a competent administration and the one we have is that Crozier would not have felt compelled to go outside the chain of command, the SecNav would not be "acting," and the Acting SecNav would not have been so terrified of his own President that he would have acted precipitously against the captain. ..."
"... There is a disheartening present trend on who is promoted (and what comprises their value set) within organizations in America at present. ..."
Robert Farley at LGM has an interesting post on Crozier,
I am circling around to the view that Crozier's actions were correct, honorable, and laudable, and that they also created a
situation that made it impossible for the Navy, notwithstanding the current occupant of the White House, to keep him in his
position.
The difference between a competent administration and the one we have is that Crozier would not have felt compelled
to go outside the chain of command, the SecNav would not be "acting," and the Acting SecNav would not have been so terrified
of his own President that he would have acted precipitously against the captain.
But decisions with strategic consequences
should lie firmly with the very senior leadership of the armed forces, and the civilians that the leadership serves.
Thank you for that link. I agree with that assessment, and I would extend that circumstance to other departments within our government,
and into other sectors like business, education, and non-profits. There is a disheartening present trend on who is promoted (and
what comprises their value set) within organizations in America at present.
"...the intelligence agencies were warning about information derived from medical sources
in China that suggested viruses were developing that might become a pandemic, but the
politicians, most particularly those in the White House, chose to take no action. He writes
that " the Trump administration has cumulatively failed, both in taking seriously the
specific, repeated intelligence community warnings about a coronavirus outbreak and in
vigorously pursuing the nationwide response initiatives commensurate with the predicted
threat. The federal government alone has the resources and authorities to lead the relevant
public and private stakeholders to confront the foreseeable harms posed by the virus.
Unfortunately, Trump officials made a series of judgments (minimizing the hazards of
COVID-19) and decisions (refusing to act with the urgency required) that have needlessly made
Americans far less safe."
"The article cites evidence that the intelligence community was collecting disturbing
information on possibly developing pathogens in China and was, as early as January, preparing
analytical reports that detailed just what was happening while also providing insights into
how devastating the global proliferation of a highly contagious and potential lethal virus
might be. One might say that the intel guys called it right, but were ignored by the White
House, which, per Zenko, acted with "unprecedented indifference, even willful
negligence...."
@bevin #8
In January? Really? Seems like the highly paid and budgeted intelligence agencies should be
able to do a better job of predicting the nCOV threat before China instituted a shutdown on
January 23 due to its view that nCOV was a problem.
Frankly, seems more like intel agency ass covering than anything else.
Additional comments regarding Chinese KN95 and why it's banned in 'murica
Getting type approval means paying for certification so a lot of domestic chinese brands
won't bother going for EN or NIOSH as those markets are stitched up by big names like 3M.
Some lesser brands or importers OEM them from China but will pay for certification for US
NIOSH for example, they would have their branding on it and probably contractual limitation
on market exclusivity, even though they're probably pumped off the same production line.
and because they're made by suppliers serving the domestic market in China, they're about
30% - 40% cheaper than N95
so it begs the question, in times like these why wouldn't you allow a temporary standards
equivalency recognition?
The only motivation I can see beyond red tape is the KN95 masks generally will have
Chinese printing on them (brand, model, certification etc) and how would the US narrative go
when everyone is wearing Chinese masks on the streets?
Apparently a low cost ventilator was constructed years ago by direction of the Federal
government. The company was bought out by another company that produced higher costs
ventilators and the project died.
Looks to me like Dr Francis Collins, director of the US National Institute of Health
He is no longer AWOL? You have seen or read a recent interview? For at least a month or
two, it has been Fauci, Fauci, Fauci, and not a hint of his boss Collins. Perhaps Collins has
been too busy handing out guitar picks.
NIH
Record
At the outset of his... presentation..., NIH director Dr. Francis Collins described new
guitar pick-shaped lapel pins ... popping up around NIH and even on Capitol Hill that tout
"Hope at NIH." These arose not only out of Collins' reputation as a musician, but also as
"insignia that we believe in what we are doing," said Collins. "You want to pick NIH and
you want to pick hope," he said, inviting the group to wear the symbols with pride.
Who needs research or effective planning when we've got "Hope at NIH"?
In 2017 he was been busy promoting
Mind/Music/Magic pseudo-science. Maybe he got lost backstage.
"Music and the Mind," on the intersection of music and science. There will be performances,
presentations, and discussions by Dr. Collins, Ms. Fleming, the National Symphony
Orchestra, neuroscientists, music therapists, and others. Some events are free, open to the
public, and will be streamed online
Too bad he is too busy to run his $35 billion agency. Good thing he has Fauci to do it for
him.
The essence of Trump's psychology is that he likes to dominate people. He accomplishes this
by hiring incompetent psychopaths who make him legitimately look good by comparison. This is
why he's constantly overruling their worst plans. But once every so often, his incompetent
underlings convince him to do something exceptionally stupid. This is because occasionally
going along with them allows him to feel like a wise, discerning ruler who occasionally
follows his advisors' guidance and occasionally overrules them.
The shortage could also be a matter of the medical bureaucracy at play. A primary driver in
physicians actions is whether or not they will be sued. If they prescribe malaria medication
for covid-19, a use that has not gone through clinical trials and FDA approval, could they be
sued if someone dies? They may expect it to work, which is why they are hoarding for
themselves and their family. But, if someone dies while being treated by ventilator, they
have no exposure because it is currently within medical guidelines.
In contrast, Chinese doctors can and are solving the problem through trial and error. One
doctor tries a medication on a patient and if the patient recovers he can communicate to
other doctors to try the medication. They dont have a system in which an attorney looking for
cash shows up if an already dying patient dies anyway.
This is a big problem for the US that is going to lead to many unnecessary deaths.
PS to vk # 1. Please think again. Trump has been in a trade war with China for what? a couple
of years? AND, he specifically banned imports of medical supplies from China. Other posters
wave supplied links for this idiocy.
Trump's about as innocent as jack the ripper. You may just be seeing things relatively, as
ghouls like Elliot Abrahms and disgusting Pomposity make Trump seen like an amateur.
"... The more I watch these moves by Pompeo the more sympathetic I become to the most sinister theories about COVID-19, its origins and its launch around the world. Read Pepe Escobar's latest to get an idea of how dark and twisted this tale could be . ..."
There are few things in this life that make me more sick to my stomach than watching
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talking. He truly is one of the evilest men I've ever had the
displeasure of covering.
Into the insanity of the over-reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak, Pompeo wasted no time
ramping up sanctions on firms doing any business with Iran, one of the countries worse-hit by
this virus to date.
It's a seemingly endless refrain, everyday,
more sanctions on Chinese, Swiss and South African firms for having the temerity in these
deflating times to buy oil from someone Pompeo and his gang of heartless psychopaths disapprove
of.
This goes far beyond just the oil industry. Even though I'm well aware that Russia's
crashing the price of oil was itself a hybrid war attack on US capital markets. One that has
had, to date, devastating effect.
While Pompeo mouths the words publicly that humanitarian aid is exempted from sanctions on
Iran, the US is pursuing immense
pressure on companies to not do so anyway while the State Dept. bureaucracy takes its sweet
time processing waiver applications.
Pompeo and his ilk only think in terms of civilizational warfare. They have become so
subsumed by their big war for the moral high ground to prove American exceptionalism that they
have lost any shred of humanity they may have ever had.
Because for Pompeo in times like these to stick to his talking points and for his office to
continue excising Iran from the global economy when we're supposed to be coming together to
fight a global pandemic is the height of soullessness.
And it speaks to the much bigger problem that infects all of our political thinking. There
comes a moment when politics and gaining political advantage have to take a back seat to doing
the right thing.
I've actually seen moments of that impulse from the Democratic leadership in the US Will
wonders never cease?!
Thinking only in Manichean terms of good vs. evil and dehumanizing your opponents is
actually costlier than reversing course right now. Because honey is always better at attracting
flies than vinegar.
But, unfortunately, that is not the character of the Trump administration.
It can only think in terms of direct leverage and opportunity to hold onto what they think
they've achieved. So, until President Trump is no longer consumed with coordinating efforts to
control COVID-19 Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper are in charge of foreign policy.
They will continue the playbook that has been well established.
Maximum pressure on Iran, hurt China any way they can, hold onto what they have in Syria,
stay in Iraq.
To that end Iraqi President Barham Salei nominated Pompeo's best choice to replace Prime
Minister Adil Abdel Mahdi to throw Iraq's future into complete turmoil. According to Elijah
Magnier,
Adnan al-Zarfi is a US asset through and through .
And this looks like Pompeo's Hail Mary to retain US legal presence in Iraq after the Iraqi
parliament adopted a measure to demand withdrawal of US troops from the country. Airstrikes
against US bases in Iraq continue on a near daily basis and there have been reports of US base
closures and redeployments at the same time.
This move looks like desperation by Pompeo et.al. to finally separate the Hashd al-Shaabi
from Iraq's official military. So that airstrikes against them can be carried out under the
definition of 'fighting Iranian terrorism.'
As Magnier points out in the article above if al-Zarfi puts a government together the war in
Iraq will expand just as the US is losing further control in Syria after Turkish President
Erdogan's disastrous attempt to remake the front in Idlib. That ended with his effective
surrender to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It is sad that, to me, I see no reason to doubt Pompeo and his ilk in the US government
wouldn't do something like that to spark political and social upheaval in those places most
targeted by US hybrid war tactics.
But, at the same time, I can see the other side of it, a vicious strike back by China
against its tormentors. And China's government does itself, in my mind, no favors threatening
to withhold drug precursors and having officials run their mouths giving Americans the excuse
they need to validate Trump and Pompeo's divisive rhetoric.
Remaining on the fence about this issue isn't my normal style. But everyone is dirty here
and the reality may well be this is a natural event terrible people on both sides are
exploiting.
And I can only go by what people do rather than what they say to assess the situation. Trump
tries to buy exclusive right to a potential COVID-19 vaccine from a German firm and his
administration slow-walks aid to Iran.
China sends aid to Iran and Italy by the container full. Is that to salve their conscience
over its initial suppression of information about the virus? Good question. But no one covers
themselves in glory by using the confusion and distraction to attempt further regime change and
step up war-footing during a public health crisis, manufactured or otherwise.
While Pompeo unctuously talks the talk of compassion and charity, he cannot bring himself to
actually walk the walk. Because he is a despicable, bile-filled man of uncommon depravity. His
prosecuting a hybrid war during a public health crisis speaks to no other conclusion about
him.
It's clear to me that nothing has changed at the top of Trump's administration. I expect
COVID-19 will not be a disaster for Trump and the US. It can handle this. But the lack of
humanity shown by its diplomatic corps ensures that in the long run the US will be left to fend
for itself when the next crisis hits.
"The number of idiots everywhere on the Internet proclaiming the following:
1) The virus won't prove to be any more dangerous than ordinary flu..."
Yeah sure, we should have just shut up and believed...
Russia interfered in the election
Russia invaded Crimea
Russia invaded Georgia
Iran is making nuclear bombs
The Skripals were poisoned by Russian agents
Assad is using chemical weapons
Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
"etc, etc., ad nauseum.
I could go on and on. The number of people who just *have to have an opinion* is staggering.
And they'll argue that they're right until the cows come home."
@99 Michael Weddington
"The virus deniers here remind me of the global warming deniers."
Why not holocaust deniers? In fact, since you didn't say holocaust deniers you must be an
antisemite holocaust denier nazi, right? It's not like you two are at CNN's website, you're
in the alternative media, where we actually questions things instead of just having blind
faith.
jackrabbit @33 -- "Coronavirus Drives the U.S. and China Deeper Into Global Power Struggle"
I would rephrase that to "US uses coronavirus to deepen global power struggle against
China"
NYT -- "These officials warn that a fast-growing China, under Mr. Xi's increasingly
authoritarian rule, seeks military, economic and technological domination over the United
States and its allies."
What weasel-speak! Repeating a big enough lie often enough, and you get distracted
citizens to fall in line behind you for when you launch a sneak attack on China. This is
nothing but a case of projection by parties who are themselves seeking to dominate the world,
the better to eat other people's lunches.
| The truth is always less glamorous than the
perception. And the truth about 9/11 is that it was first and foremost a failure of
bureaucracy.
As early as spring 2000, the CIA had learned that two of the future
hijackers had traveled to Malaysia for an al-Qaeda summit. Both men had U.S. visas yet the
information was never acted on. In California, the pair roomed with an undercover FBI agent. In
Oklahoma, one of them was pulled
over for speeding . Mere days before the attacks, they were hunkered down in Laurel,
Maryland, not far from the National Security Agency's headquarters.
They were never stopped, nor were several of the other soon-to-be hijackers who were cited
for traffic violations and raised eyebrows at flight schools, more Rocky and Mugsy than
SPECTRE. After 9/11, a congressional
investigation found that the attacks could have been prevented were it not for FBI and CIA
ineptitude. According to that and subsequent reports, the agencies had failed to share
information with each other, gotten bogged down in turf wars, and lacked outside-the-box
thinking.
They did this because this is how bureaucracies work. The state isn't some enchanted
repository of our national priorities; it's a sprawling network of individuals, who, like the
rest of us, tend to place their own interests before the common good, show reluctance in the
face of innovation, cling to rote procedure even under extraordinary circumstances, abuse their
power. And just as the predictable failures of the security bureaucracy allowed 9/11 to happen,
so too are the predictable failures of the medical bureaucracy enabling the coronavirus to
spread.
Start with the feds' delayed reaction to the virus's outbreak in Washington State. There,
the first case of COVID-19 in America was confirmed all the way back in January, and an
infectious disease expert in Seattle, Dr. Helen Chu, had an idea. According to the New
York Times , her lab had been using nasal swabs to research the flu; were they to
repurpose the tests, they could check for the coronavirus. The team quickly sought the approval
of the CDC, which kicked them over to the FDA. The FDA then denied their request, citing both
privacy concerns over the swab results and the fact that the labs were not certified for
clinical purposes. After weeks of the agency refusing to budge, the team decided to do that
most American of things: ignore the government. They tested for coronavirus and found a
positive. The bureaucrats promptly told the team to stop; they later relented but only in
part.
Those FDA rules may be in place for good reason -- patient privacy must be protected, labs
must be classified correctly -- but such rationales should quickly fall to the floor when an
epidemic is raging. Because they didn't, Chu's team was forced to waste valuable time. And even
those laboratories approved for clinical work were having a tough go of it. They still had to
apply with the feds for emergency approval to develop their own tests, and were being stymied.
"This virus is faster than the FDA," grumbled one researcher to the Times . So are
turtles with polio. It's worth pointing out that all this transpired well after the government
had declared the coronavirus a public health emergency.
The root of the problem seems to be that the bureaucracy underestimated just how widely the
coronavirus would spread. Initial tests were limited to those who had just returned from China.
Warnings from local officials that the virus was proliferating were ignored. The CDC,
meanwhile, developed its own test, but the kits were quickly determined to be faulty and
retracted. Precious weeks slipped by. Had measures been implemented, had people started social
distancing earlier and the infected been identified and quarantined faster, the coronavirus
could have been better contained. Instead the FDA tried to control the process, only to find
that it couldn't. Private labs were brought in too late and struggled to meet demand, forcing
them to ration tests. It wasn't until last week that the FDA started
permitting companies to market tests without federal blessing, though they still must get
the agency's approval within two weeks.
The process remains hamstrung by that most bureaucratic of problems: lack of coordination.
Only whereas prior to 9/11 it was agencies failing to coordinate with each other, now it's the
government failing to coordinate the supply chain. The labs, the medical providers, the supply
manufacturers -- all need to be in harmony in order to develop tests and distribute badly
needed equipment. Instead hospitals warn of
ventilator shortages . Masks are running dangerously low, with Vice President Mike Pence
announcing only last
weekend that the government had at last placed an order for hundreds of millions more. A
run on supplies following the FDA's belated easing of restrictions on private labs caused
shortages,
according to the Wall Street Journal . Tom Rogan at the Washington Examiner
reports that pallets of medical equipment are sitting unused in warehouses because the FDA
hasn't loosened its inspection protocols .
Contrast all this with South Korea, which
streamlined its medical bureaucracy following the MERS outbreak in 2015. There, officials
sounded the alarm in January and
one week later a private lab had developed a test. Today, about
10,000 South Koreans are tested daily , many of them at drive-through diagnosis centers,
compared to just a small fraction of that number in the United States.
Yes, the fish rots from the head down. Donald Trump's complacent reaction to the virus set a
terrible example. His pronouncement that the outbreak was "like a miracle, it will disappear"
now sounds insane. Yet the president can also only reach so far down into the bureaucracy; some
of those gears need to align on their own. And they clearly failed to do so. This also can't be
blamed on a lack of funding, given that Trump's supposed cuts to the medical bureaucracy
never
actually happened . Amid a massive federal budget and trillion-dollar deficits, we're
paying more than enough to expect the government to do better than this.
I know we've convinced ourselves that the country would run better if only the damned
libertarians would get out of the way, but it may be that the real problems are less trite than
that. And one of them is clearly that the government has mummified itself in its own red tape.
This happened despite the bright minds running its departments, human genome pioneer Francis
Collins at the NIH and the oncologist Stephen Hahn at the FDA. So now the bureaucracy is taking
a more deregulatory approach, lifting roadblocks to private labs,
easing restrictions on trucking,
lifting barriers to telehealth. They're about two months too late. Those early weeks were
critical and the feds spent them methodically tripping over their own banana peels.
After 9/11, the nation consoled itself by establishing a new government agency with a fancy
name, the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone who's ever talked to a DHS employee knows the
confusion and bureaucratic jostling that reigned there for years. Instead of doing the same,
once the coronavirus has passed, Congress should take a cue from another post-September 11
authority: the 9/11 Commission. Establish a body to investigate the government's blunders.
Mimic South Korea and clear away the clutter. Because this time the costs of bureaucracy aren't
just abstract notions of productivity and GDP; they're human lives. about the author
Matt Purple is the managing editor of The American Conservative . emailleave a comment
One thing I think played a role that is not mentioned is Trumps business that he owns. He
owns hotels and casinos which will be devastated. Trump wont rule out government assistance
for himself.
For Trump to shut down the economy and produce an effective containment, he would have had
to do this knowing that his own business would be devastated.
On the morning of March 11, US author Kurt Eichenwald tweeted
As I said, @ GOPLeader – and other GOPrs – were told in a political
consultants memo to start using name "Chinese Virus" as part of some stupid political
strategy.
Everyone: Go to McCarthy's twitter feed and ask "How can we trust GOP when you dont even
know the disease's name?
And just as expected, over the next few days government officials and politicians, including
the respected President of the United States, started using the term "Chinese Virus".
This usage is against the new naming convention released by the WHO in 2015.
Dr Keiji Fukuda, Assistant Director-General for Health Security at WHO said in 2015
regarding the new naming convention, "We've seen certain disease names provoke a backlash
against members of particular religious or ethnic communities, create unjustified barriers to
travel, commerce and trade, and trigger needless slaughtering of food animals. This can have
serious consequences for peoples' lives and livelihoods."
Unfortunately, the political strategy has succeeded. Instead of talking about how absolutely
incompetent the US response has been, the talking point has been shifted to Americans fighting
over whether its right to call it Chinese Virus, with one side saying it stigmatises innocent
Asians and instigates hate crime, and the other claiming its a liberal PC agenda.
This, coupled with the spread of fake news regarding how China "covered it up for weeks",
(which I wrote about here )
has successfully diverted anger away from the US government and shifted the blame to China.
For good measure, a short recap of the US's incompetence:
Censorship and misinformation (which Americans claim China is doing)
There is a saying the you fight the war with the army you have, not with the army you want.
Notable quotes:
"... Ok. Let me start by stating that I am not a "staunch" Trump supporter. However, I just really despise the constant visceral negative, hatred towards our Country's President. ..."
"... As I am sure you are aware, it is a tremendously difficult job, especially in today's crisis. I would think it would be better serve of your time and efforts to be constructive and optimistic, and hopeful. Rather than pinpointed every single steps and missteps he makes. He is certainly no perfect - but his goal is the same as all of ours: to defeat this virus in the best manner possible with the resources available. ..."
"... For the entire Trump Presidency it was all about the stock market. So, here we are. ..."
20 hours ago Here is a 1 minute 22 second video timeline of Trump's amazing handling of the coronavirus.
Please play this.
It will take less than two minutes of your time.
One missing key quote is a statement Trump made bragging about having natural talent coupled with a proclamation that he could
have been a scientist instead of president.
More Questions:
And where are the tests? The ventilators?
Who at the CDC or in the administration insisted the US needs to develop its own test instead of using an accurate test the rest
of the world was already using?
What about Trump increasing sanction pressure on Iran in the midst of the biggest global humanitarian crisis since world war II?
And what about Trump's rating his administration's handling of this as "excellent".
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
njbr 20 hrs
The dumb-asses in DC still don't get it. "Top" leaders crowding around a single microphone in a stage no larger than a public
restroom. Working toward a 1 time $1200 check that probably wont be issued/delivered for another couple weeks. What about the weeks
after that--are they going to spend the next couple weeks going around about the next check?? Has the production of ventilators actually
been accelerated-who could tell from what has been said? Why are nurses and doctors in my area asking the public for donations of
PPE at the very beginning of the serious phase? What happens when the doctors and nurses start tipping over? Two partially ready
hospital ships may help in one spot each on the coast, but what about everywhere else? Has anyone even checked on the production
capacity for the maybe helpful malaria medicine--has anyone been directed to begin proactive super-production of this product? On
and on.
DeeDee3
20 hrs
hard to prove deliberate neglect when you eliminate all of the evidence. No testing means "no virus" and sadly supported the hoax
theory.
Another doc died in the city today. ER's are unprotected. what conclusion can we draw from all of this?
Zardoz
20 hrs
Thousands will die because of his incompetence... and his followers will blame the Chinese
egilkinc
20 hrs
There should be a tracker of the number of cases [among medical personnle] in the US along with this
Sechel
20 hrs
Oh my g-d. This is excellent! I think Trump has learned some bad lessons from Goebbels. Repeat the lie and repeat it often and
people will take your version of events. This really serves to correct the record! Good work!
PecuniaNonOlet
20 hrs
And yet there will be an avalanche of Trump supporters defending the idiot. It is truly beyond me.
michiganmoon
20 hrs
Actually, Trump should resign and give the GOP a chance this November.
Had Trump not downplayed this and had tests ready, he could have played on a loop Biden on January 31st saying travel restrictions
from Wuhan were racist and xenophobic.
thesaint0013
20 hrs
Ok. Let me start by stating that I am not a "staunch" Trump supporter. However, I just really despise the constant visceral negative,
hatred towards our Country's President.
As I am sure you are aware, it is a tremendously difficult job, especially in today's crisis.
I would think it would be better serve of your time and efforts to be constructive and optimistic, and hopeful. Rather than pinpointed
every single steps and missteps he makes. He is certainly no perfect - but his goal is the same as all of ours: to defeat this virus
in the best manner possible with the resources available.
To criticize previous tweets, interviews, and depict his flaws and errors
does not help the common goal. The nature of some of the questions posed to him during the press conferences should be a bit more
respectful and again, it doesn't serve any positive outcome to try and "catch" him in a lie, and how he may have said something that
was not factual or false.
Again, he's not perfect and neither are anyone of us. However he is our President and we should support
his and all of our common goal to defeat this virus.
Russell
J 20 hrs
Not making excuses for Trump at all but he/we have people who are specialists and are responsible for being ready at all times
for something like this and are responsible for being on the look out for this. Somebody should have came forward, even as a whistleblower.
I've been aware for about 2 months now.
Thank you WWW.PEAKPROSPERITY.COM, MISH and WWW.ZEROHEDGE.COM
This was an epic failure of Trump, his administration and America in general.
ghoffa
20 hrs
Hi, @MishTalk @Mish
I wanted to sincerely thank you MISH from my whole extended family. I have been reading you since 2007 when Ron Paul removed the
scales from my eyes on the Fed and govt., Jekyll Island book, the "financial markets" (all modern day money changers). Every picture
I see of Fed chairpersons, their eyes look dead black sharks eyes (to quote a famous book which I subscribe, the eyes are the windows
to the soul).
In addition our mob style duolopoly govt and for the most part complicit MSM (all with significant influencing billionaire ownership
to control the news - easily searched). I've learned so much from this blog and the many commentors in this space ( a personal fav
is @Stuki ) . Nothing short of brilliant and reminds me of my fav news source Zerohedge and it's articles and commentors.
A special thanks for pointing us to Chris Martenson (peakprosperity.com) as my wife and I have watched every day his free daily
videos since JAN @24th and our extended family is as prepared as we can be. God help us all with what's coming.
For those who haven't watched it, Dr. Martenson has a great 3 min video on exponential growth on YTube. Search his name and exponential.
It will help you prepare for what our govt knows is coming in enourmous exponential growth in fatalities. Even knowing, it will be
an emotional thing to prepare for. Prepping home supplies is one thing, prepping emotionally is also important per Dr. Martenson.
HCWs be damned.
As this impacts people personally, I expect insider leaks to come from many fronts. We're working with neighbors to get prepared
as we're all on our own now as the money changers (evil) bail out the money changers (evil) amidst a system that is so debt leveraged
it can't likely be bailed out. "everything's a nail and the Fed has a hammer".
Lastly this brings a famous quote to mind as the people rise up against corrupt govt, corp bailouts after stock buy backs, etc.
Let alone the monsters upon monsters creating lab viruses (regardless of the source of this virus), and unregulated GMOs changing
the fabric of life.....
"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing". Margaret Mead
G
QE2Infinity
20 hrs
Come on! First off, anyone can be made to look bad by taking snippets out of context and stringing them together. That said, Trump
does tend towards braggadocio. If that is off putting to you, he can be annoying. I much prefer a transparent fool to the more sly
variety that plays the part well while sticking a knife in your back.
But let's be honest here. The president can do very little. The bureaucracy of the government is a jobs program for the less ambitious
and politically inclined. It's staffed with incompetent bureaucrats that show up, surf the web and may get around to an hour or two
of honest work. Public unions guarantee they can't be fired.
Obama converted the CDC into a PC jobs program for lefties, just like he converted NASA into a Muslim outreach program.
May one ask: why is a self proclaimed libertarian screaming for more government action? Wouldn't it be great if one of the outcomes
of this crisis is that local communities became more self reliant and more self sufficient!
Sechel
20 hrs
that's from a website called therecount.com looks interesting.
Greggg
20 hrs
For the entire Trump Presidency it was all about the stock market. So, here we are.
The graphic at the end of the video already looks out of date and shows how rapid the spread has been. For March 2020 it shows
5,002 cases in the US (and counting) but right now I'm seeing 24,137 cases.
So much for "in a couple of days the 15 is going to be down close to zero".
njbr
20 hrs
What can the President do?
Force and organize the production of necessary goods.
Act as impartial hub for the distribution of new and stocked items.
Force/fund the emergency super-production of even possibly helpful items such as the malarial drug.
Turn every possible research dollar onto the research into the disease, it's treatments and vaccines.
Fund and distribute tests. Make a way to track the progress of the disease, as opposed to waiting for regional medical systems
collapse under load.
Activate whatever resources are possible to pre-position and set-up field hospitals now.
Develop uniform best-practices for quarantine and treatment.
Prepare the population for the realistic probability of multiple months of the crisis.
Mish Editor
19 hrs
May one ask: why is a self proclaimed libertarian screaming for more government action? Wouldn't it be great if one of the outcomes
of this crisis is that local communities became more self reliant and more self sufficient!
I said what I would do
I would remove tariffs. I would not have had them in the first place.
I would expect our president to act to increase supplies not insist on Made in America.
I would expect our president to behave like an emphatic human being, not a total moron
Mish
Editor
19 hrs
Trump did not Drain the Swamp. He IS the swamp
Mish Editor
19 hrs
Anyone who still supports this President's actions is a TDS-inflicted fool.
Jim
Bob 19 hrs
I've followed Mish for ~ 12 years online and on the radio for brilliant economic analysis. Lately his work has been undermined
by irrational political opinion. Mish has turned into Krugman. I won't be back.
abend237-04
19 hrs
The Donald is obviously afflicted with the same narcissistic megalomania prerequisite for a successful run at any elective office
above County Coroner, anywhere in this country.
That said, he can apparently read a graph, and he's right: The two drug combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin are working
to treat this damn thing, BUT:
It is, indeed, not a Covid-19 preventative.
If you get it, and you dink around at home too long waiting for improvement, arriving at ICU needing ventilation leaves you with
roughly the odds of Russian roulette of surviving, especially if you're older.
Lacking testing, the only remaining means available to knock the transmission rate down quickly is social distancing/lockdown. But,
enough of that prevention can leave us wishing we were dead anyway.
Unfortunately, all the college kids jamming the bars and beaches is setting the stage for continued exponential growth by hordes
of asymptomatic spreaders.
The march of folly continues.
I like what I'm seeing of Cuomo. He'd be a good guy to have in the room in a serious fight; This qualifies.
DBG8489
19 hrs
As someone who hates all politicians, there is zero love lost between Trump and myself. I had hopes when he was elected that he
would make a difference but it was clear based on how he looked after his private meeting with Obama on inauguration day that he
was in over his head.
Having said that, I will say this:
From at least the "major" state level up, it would appear that not one single elected official or the top advisors and bureaucrats
who work for them have shown anything but complete and utter failure in their handling of this emergency.
You have senators selling off piles of stock while either saying nothing or telling the rest of us that it was bullshit. And trust
me - they were not the only ones. If anyone cares to investigate, they will likely find this problem rampant. Elected officials should
not even be allowed to trade stocks when they control the entire economy - not even through alleged "blind trusts" - it's bullshit.
But that's a conversation for another time.
You have congressional reps and senators blaming each other and/or the other party and passing laws and bailouts without even
reading the bills they are passing.
You have the Treasury and the Fed printing money and throwing it at every hole that opens up without the slightest regard for
what the unintended consequences of those actions may entail.
You have governments of the "major" states (CA, NY, NJ...etc) who know they can't simply print money being exposed using any extra
money they had (along with taxes based on tourism that have now disappeared) to fund God knows what now demanding that everyone else
pony up to pay for their failure to plan...
The lack of leadership in the major states and at the Federal level is abysmal ACROSS THE BOARD.
And that includes members of BOTH parties and nearly every single bureaucratic agency involved.
You can single Trump out if you want, but he's not alone. He's just an easy target because 49% of the population hated him before
this started.
njbr
18 hrs
....Top health officials first learned of the virus's spread in China on January 3, US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex
Azar said Friday. Throughout January and February, intelligence officials' warnings became more and more urgent, according to the
Post -- and by early February, much of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA's intelligence reports were
dedicated to warnings about Covid-19.
All the while, Trump downplayed the virus publicly, telling the public the coronavirus "is very well under control in our country,"
and suggesting warm weather would neutralize the threat the virus poses....
...The administration did begin taking some limited action about a month after Azar says the administration first began receiving
warnings, blocking non-citizens who had been to China in the last two weeks from entering the country on February 3 -- a move public
experts have argued at best bought the US time to ramp up its testing capabilities, which it did not use, and at worst had no beneficial
effects at all.
Trump finally assembled a task force to address the virus, putting Vice President Mike Pence in charge of the effort on February
26, and declared a national emergency on March 13. And, just this week -- nearly three months after first receiving warnings from
his intelligence officials -- the president's public tone about the crisis shifted: "I've always known this is a real -- this is
a pandemic," he said Tuesday as he admitted, "[the virus is] not under control for any place in the world."....
Realist
18 hrs
I have been watching political leaders in my own country get on television daily. They have all done a great job of informing
the public about the dangers of this virus. They have all relied on the experts to relay information to the public about what the
government is doing, and what individuals should be doing. This is true at the national, regional, and local levels.
In addition businesses have been sending out emails, radio announcements and tv messages explaining what they are doing in regard
to this pandemic.
In fact, I am amazed at what a good job everyone is doing.
I am also watching what is happening in the US. Every US state governor and city mayor I have seen on tv has done a wonderful
job of presenting the facts to the public and provided instructions as to what they are doing and what the public should be doing.
Then there is the gong show that is Trump. I could not imagine that anyone could be as bad as he is; months of lies, denials,
suppression of the truth, and a complete and utter lack of preparation for something he was warned about many times. Denying one
day that the virus was a pandemic; only to claim the very next day that he had known it was a pandemic for months; and then the very
next day say that no one could have seen this coming; and finally saying that his response to the virus rates a 10 out of 10.
Worst President ever. Sadly, many, many Americans are going to suffer and die because America had this moron in charge.
Mish keeps referring to worldometer to get stats from. Their numbers seem to match up with numbers I see in my own country and
in the US.
Disturbingly, today, the mortality rate for closed cases ticked up 1% to 12%. 12978 deaths and 94674 recovered. That is not the
direction I expected it to go.
daveyp
17 hrs
You get what you vote for. To have such a malignant narcissist of such profoundly limited intellectual honesty and capacity "leading"
your nation through this is truly tragic for your country. Even the hideously vile ultimate Washington insider Hilary would have
done a better job.
truthseeker
17 hrs
Mish I agree with much of the criticism of Trump, yet had he done everything you and others suggest, there is this implied assumption
that everything would have worked out perfectly. You know I am impressed the way the country seems to be uniting to such a great
degree, that I think there is at least some hope for our country's future though there are huge challenges that lay ahead absolutely!
abend237-04
17 hrs
I will now proceed, once again, to bitch about the root cause of our current pandemic, which is causing many to experience cosmic
scale frustration with The Donald, which I share:
Civilization has now been hit squarely in the head with three killer coronavirus outbreaks in 18 years, yet still has no unified
global new viral antigen detection system. We could have if our world "leaders" would make it happen.
Local supercomputers, however massive, will never crack this nut, but the billions of powerful, web-accessible smartphones could
if linked and used by a parallelized, intelligent scheduler to raise the alarm when a new antibody/pathogen is discovered in human
blood anywhere.
Such a system could have lifted the burden from a lonely doctor struggling to raise the alarm in Wuhan, before Covid-19 killed
him, and placed it squarely in front of disease control experts, worldwide. It can be done; We must do it.
Sars cov-3/4/5/6/7/8/9/n could kill us all if we don't.
"... It is widely believed that the abrupt withdrawal of candidates Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg on the eve of Super Tuesday that targeted Sanders was arranged through an intervention by ex-President Barack Obama who made a plea in support of "party unity," offering the two a significant quid pro quo down the road if they were willing to leave the race and throw their support to Biden, which they dutifully did ..."
"... Trump might be described as both paranoid and narcissistic, meaning that he sees himself as surrounded by enemies and that the enemies are out to get him personally. When he is criticized, he either ridicules the source or does something impulsive to deflect what is being said. He attacked Syria twice based on false claims about the use of chemical weapons when a consensus developed in the media and in congress that he was being "weak" in the Middle East. Those attacks were war crimes as Syria was not threatening the United States. ..."
"... Biden is on a different track in that he is an establishment hawk. As head of the Senate Foreign Affairs committee back in 2002-2003 he green lighted George W. Bush's plan to attack Iraq. Beyond that, he cheer-leaded the effort from the Democratic Party benches, helping to create a consensus both in Washington and in the media that Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be dealt with. He should have known better as he was privy to intelligence that was suggesting that the Iraqis were no threat at all. He did not moderate his tune on Iraq until after 2005, when the expected slam-dunk quick victory got very messy. ..."
"... Biden was also certainly privy to the decision making by President Barack Obama, which include the destruction of Libya and the killing of American citizens by drone. Whether he actively supported those policies is unknown, but he has never been challenged on them. What is clear is that he did not object to them, another sign of his willingness to go along with the establishment, a tendency which will undoubtedly continue if he is elected president. ..."
Now that the
Democratic Party has apparently succeeded in getting rid of the only two voices among its
presidential candidates that actually deviated from the establishment consensus, it appears
that Joe Biden will be running against Donald Trump in November. To be sure, Bernie Sanders and
Tulsi Gabbard are still hanging on, but the fix was in and the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) made sure that Sanders would be given the death blow on Super Tuesday while Gabbard would
be blocked from participating in any of the late term debates.
It is widely believed that the abrupt withdrawal of candidates Amy Klobuchar and Pete
Buttigieg on the eve of Super Tuesday that targeted Sanders was arranged through an
intervention by ex-President Barack Obama who made a plea in support of "party unity," offering
the two a significant quid pro quo down the road if they were willing to leave the race and
throw their support to Biden, which they dutifully did. Rumor has it that Klobuchar might well
wind up as Biden's vice president. An alternative tale is that it was a much more threatening
"offer that couldn't be refused" coming from the Clintons.
... ... ...
Both Trump and Biden might reasonably described as Zionists, Trump by virtue of the
made-in-Israel foreign policy positions he has delivered on since his election, and Biden by
word and deed during his entire time in politics. When Biden encountered Sarah Palin in 2008 in
the vice-presidential debate, he and Palin sought to outdo each other in enthusing over how
much they love the Jewish state. Biden has said that "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a
Jew to be a Zionist" and also, ridiculously, "Were there not an Israel, the U.S. would have to
invent one. We will never abandon Israel -- out of our own self-interest. [It] is the best $3
billion investment we make." Biden has been a regular feature speaker at the annual AIPAC
summit in Washington.
Trump might be described as both paranoid and narcissistic, meaning that he sees himself as
surrounded by enemies and that the enemies are out to get him personally. When he is
criticized, he either ridicules the source or does something impulsive to deflect what is being
said. He attacked Syria twice based on false claims about the use of chemical weapons when a
consensus developed in the media and in congress that he was being "weak" in the Middle East.
Those attacks were war crimes as Syria was not threatening the United States.
Trump similarly reversed himself on withdrawing from Syria when he ran into criticism of the
move and his plan to extricate the United States from Afghanistan, if it develops at all, could
easily be subjected to similar revision. Trump is not really the man who as a candidate
indicated that he was seriously looking for a way out of America's endless and pointless wars,
no matter what his supporters continue to assert.
Biden is on a different track in that he is an establishment hawk. As head of the Senate
Foreign Affairs committee back in 2002-2003 he green lighted George W. Bush's plan to attack
Iraq. Beyond that, he cheer-leaded the effort from the Democratic Party benches, helping to
create a consensus both in Washington and in the media that Saddam Hussein was a threat that
had to be dealt with. He should have known better as he was privy to intelligence that was
suggesting that the Iraqis were no threat at all. He did not moderate his tune on Iraq until
after 2005, when the expected slam-dunk quick victory got very messy.
Biden was also certainly privy to the decision making by President Barack Obama, which
include the destruction of Libya and the killing of American citizens by drone. Whether he
actively supported those policies is unknown, but he has never been challenged on them. What is
clear is that he did not object to them, another sign of his willingness to go along with the
establishment, a tendency which will undoubtedly continue if he is elected president.
And Biden's foreign policy reminiscences are is subject to what appear to be memory losses
or inability to articulate, illustrated by a whole series of faux pas during the campaign. He
has a number of times told a tale of his heroism in Afghanistan that is
complete fiction , similar to Hillary Clinton's lying claims of courage under fire in
Bosnia.
So, we have a president in place who takes foreign policy personally in that his first
thoughts are "how does it make me look?" and a prospective challenger who appears to be
suffering from initial stages of dementia and who has always been relied upon to support the
establishment line, whatever it might be. Though Trump is the more dangerous of the two as he
is both unpredictable and irrational, the likelihood is that Biden will be guided by the
Clintons and Obamas. To put it another way, no matter who is president the likelihood that the
United States will change direction to get away from its interventionism and bullying on a
global scale is virtually nonexistent. At least until the money runs out. Or to express it as a
friend of mine does, "No matter who is elected we Americans wind up getting John McCain."
Goodnight America!
Philip Giraldi Ph.D., Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. A former
CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent twenty years overseas in Europe and
the Middle East working terrorism cases. He holds a BA with honors from the University of
Chicago and an MA and PhD in Modern History from the University of London. "
Source "
But she sees this China-bashing as mostly a political reaction:
In reality these people are rallying behind the campaign to blame China for the health
crisis they're now facing because they understand that otherwise the blame will land
squarely on the shoulders of their president, who's running for re-election this year.
instead of a deliberate Deep-State strategy (which is my view).
We can argue who created the virus (I'm still looking for any rebuttal to the Chinese
claim that USA must be the source because it has all five strains of the virus), but the
Empire's gaming of the virus outbreak seems very clear to me.
"The Obama-Biden Administration set up the White House National Security Council
Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense to prepare for future pandemics like
covid-19. Donald Trump eliminated it -- and now we're paying the price."
-- Former vice president Joe Biden, in a tweet, March 19
BUT!!! OBAMA DID, TOO!!! (As did Dubya)
After Barack Obama became president in 2009, he eliminated the White House Health and
Security Office, which worked on international health issues. But after grappling with the
2014 Ebola epidemic, Obama in 2016 established a Directorate for Global Health Security and
Biodefense at the NSC. A directorate has its own staff, and it is headed by someone who
generally reports to the national security adviser.
One can see the dueling narratives here, neither entirely incorrect. The office -- as set
up by Obama in 2016 -- was folded into another office. Thus, one could claim the office was
eliminated. But the staff slots did not disappear and at least initially the key mission of
team remained a priority. So one can also claim nothing changed and thus Biden's criticism is
overstated.
@edg
have against the large and presumably highly skilled public health agencies under HHS? If
they had flubbed, then they should have been ordered to fix the problem; reorganize and/or
replace the incompetents so that such flubs don't happen again. The Asst Secretary for Public
Health, a physician, oversees those agencies and reports to the HHS Secretary who in turn
reports to the POTUS.
Why set up a WH office overseen by a person with no public health expertise or experience
to report to the NSC director?
A group of economists and policy experts on Wednesday called on President Donald Trump to
immediately lift the United States' crippling sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and
other countries, warning that the economic warfare -- in addition to being cruel in itself --
is "feeding the coronavirus epidemic" by hampering nations' capacity to respond.
"This policy is unconscionable and flagrantly against international law. It is imperative
that the U.S. lift these immoral and illegal sanctions to enable Iran and Venezuela to
confront the epidemic as effectively and rapidly as possible," Columbia University professor
Jeffrey Sachs said in a statement just hours after the Trump administration intensified
sanctions against Iran, which has been devastated by COVID-19.
Promising to "smash" Venezuela's government during a "maximum pressure March," Trump has
imposed crushing sanctions that force Venezuela to spend three times as much as
non-sanctioned countries on coronavirus testing kits.
As the US teeters on the edge of abyss amid a Covid-19 pandemic, the crisis has revealed
systemic flaws brought by years of two-party plutocracy that go far beyond a single president,
says Lee Camp, host of RT's Redacted Tonight. While President Donald Trump bears a good portion
of the blame for the sluggish US response to Covid-19, he is only one piece of a larger puzzle.
America's structural defects long predate Trump's time in office, the comedian argued.
"The fact that so many millions of Americans don't have paid sick leave, or hardly make
minimum wage and therefore can't afford an emergency – that kind of system was set up
under a two-party apparatus that basically agreed: 'Let's create an America where people are
completely exploited,'" Camp said.
@Poco
Globalism is not harmed at all. The machine didn't blow up, it simply shut off.
Unfortunately, it supplies life-giving goods and services to billions, regardless of
Globohomo using it to spread FOURTH-worlders everywhere in the West (US Southern order
remains wide open.)
Trump has reached peak incompetence with this one. All the gains of his 'legacy' have been
wiped out, but he always has his (((trusted advisers))) ready to steer him into the rocks.
Time to reminisce about record low black unemployment numbers.
Priority #1 – Make sure everyone is aware that this virus indisputably originated in
China. China, China, China. Call it the China virus or the Wuhan virus so everyone knows. China
is very, very bad and we must say so over and over and over again.
You should know by now that repeating the actual words of administration officials, including the President, is clear evidence
of irrational partisan bias. The surgeon general chided the press on Saturday for writing stories about the past.
Here's a link to a video of the President saying he is not responsible for the closing of the pandemic office, linked to a
video of the press conference in which he explained why he closed the pandemic office:
Obviously a deep fake. Dear Leader would never say such a thing, and even if he did, if he says he didn't, he didn't. If you bout
this, please report to Room 101.
As near as I can interpret the article you reference, the leading experts on global pandemics were fired. The remaining staff
responsible for building the response to global pandemics were assigned new duties. The function of dealing with global pandemics
was assigned to an existing department that was also assigned other new responsibilities at the same time. In that sense, there
is still an office that is responsible for dealing with global pandemics. But that office no longer has the same resources for
doing that, and has many other responsibilities.
When I joined the National Security Council staff in 2018, I inherited a
strong and skilled staff in the counterproliferation and biodefense
directorate. This team of national experts together drafted the National Biodefense Strategy of 2018 and an accompanying national
security presidential memorandum to implement it; an executive order to modernize influenza vaccines; and coordinated the United
States' response to the Ebola epidemic in Congo, which was ultimately defeated in 2020.
Seems pretty open to obvious interpretation. This was post the so-called firing that is being blamed on the president. And
if you have evidence that the administration medical team is not today staffed at a level even higher than before 2017, let's
see it.
So the bureaucrat who picked up the extra responsibilities writes an editorial saying that he had the whole thing handled all
along. He doesn't have much credibility; he's got no future as a Republican apparatchik if he doesn't say something here. He ran
the office with the responsibility, but there's still no evidence of having kept anyone with expertise in pandemics. Expertise
still matters.
You could start by not trafficking in falsehoods such as your "pandemic team" claim. And then you should stop whining about division
while sowing division.
I don't understand what "claim" you're referring to. Have you got your lines crossed, managing all the Trump apologetics? I know
it's a full-time job.
But actually, Trump, via his surrogate Bolton (you know, the guy Trump appointed as part of "draining the swamp") *did* gut
that office. Senior staff left, other staff got reassigned, and the whole shop was reduced to something like two people.
You are objecting to a video in which Trump admits to the very thing that you claim didn't happen. Truly you're living up to your
messiah's words: I take no responsibility .
The problem is that the President tries to have it both ways. When he thought he was just getting rid of excess staff, he was
proud to take responsibility for his choice. When it later became clear that there were bad consequences for that same choice,
the President denied responsibility for that specific action.
Trump routinely makes statements that contradict each other, leaving it to his supporters to decide which ones they want to
hear. Maybe you're comfortable with the changes in direction, but many of us have memories that go back more than a few hours.
Whatever happened at the NSC was planned long ago. Even Obama knew that it was an overbloated bureaucracy. And your assertion
that the reorganization resulted in "bad consequences is just that..a claim. You have not established it as a fact or common knowledge.
Based on those conclusions your narrative is uncompelling.
My God you are beyond parody. Your big score, the point that you believe is going to show me what's what, is -- My Messiah
walked back one of his lies, and you don't want to give him credit . Most people hold toddlers to a higher standard -- do
you understand that?
If he's anyone's messiah it's yours. You expect him to walk on water, or save you from coronavirus. I don't expect that of him
at all. There's your parody.
It was a somber Donald Trump who spoke at the White House today to declare a "national emergency" and that "we're doing a great
job." Gone was his language about exaggerated fears and a "hoax" surrounding the coronavirus. His own daughter, Ivanka, stayed home
rather than visit the White House because of her exposure to an Australian official who has the coronavirus.
Not only was the shift in tone marked, but Trump also referred constantly to the numerous public health experts and corporate
CEOs flanking him as he faced the biggest crisis of his presidency. Dr. Anthony Fauci indicated that the coronavirus may remain virulent
for another eight to nine weeks: "I can't give you a number. It depends how successful we are." Trump himself sought to convey confidence
by emphasizing that his administration had moved quickly to impede the spread of the coronavirus, including quickly ordering travel
bans. How effective will his emergency declaration prove?
The most important thing that the administration can do is work to remove the uncertainty surrounding the extent of the spread
of the virus. Until there is more clarity, economic activity will be hobbled as investors and businesses retreat from incurring any
additional risk. In this regard, Trump's decision to announce an emergency was a case of better late than never. Failure is not an
option. Left unchecked, the worst-case estimates are that the coronavirus could kill up to 1.5 million people and turn America into
Italy writ large. Writing in the Washington Post today, the Italian journalist Monica Maggioni underscores just how grim that prospect
would be: "I find myself confined in a place where time is suspended. All the shops are closed, except for groceries and pharmacies.
All the bars and restaurants are shuttered. Every tiny sign of life has disappeared. The streets are totally empty; it is forbidden
even to take a walk unless you carry a document that explains to authorities why you have left your house. The lockdown that began
here in Lombardy now extends to the entire country."
Some of the most important pledges Trump made were that he would offer up to $50 billion in federal funding to states to battle
the coronavirus. He indicated that hospitals can now "do as they want. They could do as they have to." He added, "I'm urging every
state to set up emergency operations centers effective immediately." He indicated, in response to a question after his opening statement,
that he himself would undergo a coronavirus test, something that he had previously resisted. Trump also said that up to five million
tests would be available by the end of the month-a lofty goal. The danger for Trump is that, as is his wont, he is overpromising.
Still, the move to establish drive-thru testing at places like Walgreens and Walmart parking lots makes good sense. Trump's weakest
moment by far came when he responded to a question about the lack of testing that until now has badly hampered efforts to stop the
virus-"No, I don't take responsibility at all."
To help prop up the economy, he indicated that government purchases for the strategic reserve would be increased. Wall Street
responded positively to Trump's remarks as the stock market rose, ending up almost two thousand points on Friday. But Trump also
pooh-poohed a multi-billion dollar bill backed by House Democrats to address the coronavirus crisis, remarking that they "are not
doing what's right for the country." Among other things, it does not include the payroll tax relief that Trump is supporting. House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is vowing to vote on the bill.
For now, the measures that Trump announced today will mark a significant shift in his administration's approach to the pandemic.
Former Food and Drug Administration head Scott Gottlieb tweeted, "Actions by White House today to sharply increase testing capacity
and access, declare a national emergency, implement new steps to protect vulnerable Americans, support assistance for those hardest
hit by mitigation steps, all very important. Will meaningfully improve readiness."
Fun fact: the European Union actually has no authority over health issues whatsoever. This
is a strict Member State prerogative. The countries can coordinate voluntarily (which is what
is currently arranged by the European Commission, but since there is no precedence it takes
time) - but there was no way to make any decision about that in Brussels.
Greetings from Europe. In these hard times I'd like to thank Trump for providing such gold
comedy material from just being a moron and reminding us all that it could always be
worse.
Oh, they have. This is from the email I got from the White House listserv:
"Some 150,000 illegal immigrants from 72 nations with cases of the coronavirus have been
apprehended or deemed inadmissible from entering the United States since November," according
to officials. These apprehensions underscore the need for border security and proper vetting.
Read more from Paul Bedard in the Washington Examiner.
WORTH REPEATING: In 2018, Trump fired the entire US pandemic response team.
These were the experts with decades of experience dealing with precisely the kind of
situation we are in today.
Michael Grunwald @MikeGrunwald
I had forgotten my own reporting that @SenatorCollins
stripped $870M for pandemic preparations out of the 2009 stimulus.
[page image from Grunwald's book, The New New Deal ]
There was some discussion here the other day about who's responsible for the sorry state
of the CDC
and pandemic preparation in particular. Now, the Dems controlled all the WH, Senate and House
in 2009,
so obviously they share some of the blame, but if Collins hadn't demanded this,
it probably wouldn't have happened.
Considering how pretty much all Western governments fucked up big time, I expect a
backlash against current governing parties, if not a serious questioning of the ways current
"liberal" democracies are working. And they won't be able to blame it on Putin's or Xi's
troll army; everyone can see they brought this upon themselves.
This is the time where the Four Stages system from Yes Minister - which is blatantly used
by our political leaders - is out in the open, because the consequences won't appear decades
in the future but will be obvious before this year is over.
Of couse, globalization of trade, free-trade, free movement of people will have to be
reconsidered. And last but not least, if people have to live for months under lockdown or
quarantine, it might have an impact on the economic and productive system -- and also on the
environment --, because our societies will have to focus on what's truly needed for them to
survive as societies, and not on the fanciful bullshit like marketing, spin doctors, traders
and countless bureaucratic jobs.
"... Myths help their audiences understand the causes of things. As narrative theorists like Mark Turner and specialists in memory like Charles Fernyhough emphasize, people learn how to behave from stories and concepts of cause and effect in childhood. The linear sequence of before, now and after communicates the relationships between things and how we, as human beings, understand our own responsibility in the world. ..."
Zeus,
the head Greek god, who lamented humans' tendency to bring suffering upon themselves. (Carole Raddato/Flickr,
CC BY-SA)
Zeus, the head Greek god, who lamented humans' tendency to bring suffering
upon themselves. (Carole Raddato/Flickr, CC BY-SA)
In the fifth century B.C., the playwright Sophocles begins "
Oedipus
Tyrannos
" with the title character struggling to identify the cause of a plague striking his city,
Thebes. (Spoiler alert: It's his own bad leadership.)
As someone who writes about early Greek poetry, I
spend a lot of time thinking about why its performance was so crucial to ancient life. One answer is that
epic and tragedy helped ancient storytellers and audiences try to make sense of human suffering.
From this perspective, plagues functioned as a setup for an even more crucial theme in ancient myth: a
leader's intelligence. At the beginning of the "Iliad," for instance, the prophet Calchas – who knows the
cause of a
nine-day plague
– is praised as someone "
who
knows what is, what will be and what happened before
."
This language anticipates a chief criticism of Homer's legendary King Agamemnon: He does not know "
the
before and the after
."
The epics remind their audiences that leaders need to be able to plan for the future based on what has
happened in the past. They need to understand cause and effect. What caused the plague? Could it have
been prevented?
People's recklessness
Myths help their audiences understand the causes of things. As narrative theorists like
Mark Turner
and specialists in memory like
Charles Fernyhough
emphasize,
people learn how to behave from stories and concepts of cause and effect in childhood. The linear
sequence of before, now and after communicates the relationships between things and how we, as human
beings, understand our own responsibility in the world.
Plague stories provide settings where fate pushes human organization to the limit. Human leaders are
almost always crucial to the causal sequence, as Zeus observes in Homer's "Odyssey," saying, as I've
translated it, "Humans are always blaming the gods for their suffering / but they experience pain beyond
their fate because of their own recklessness."
The problems humans create go beyond just plagues: The poet Hesiod writes that the top Greek god,
Zeus, showed his disapproval for bad leaders by burdening them with
military failures as well as pandemics
. The consequences of human failings are a refrain in the
ancient critique of leaders, with or without plagues: The "Iliad," for instance, describes rulers who "
ruin
their people through recklessness
." The "Odyssey" phrases it as "
bad
shepherds ruin their flocks
."
Devastating illness
Plagues were common in the ancient world, but not all of them were blamed on leaders. Like other
natural disasters, they were frequently blamed on the gods.
But historians, like Polybius in the second century B.C. and Livy in the first century B.C., also
frequently recount epidemics striking armies and people in swamps or cities with poor sanitation.
Philosophers and physicians also searched for rational approaches –
blaming the climate
, or
pollution
.
When the historian Thucydides recounts how a plague with alleged origins in Ethiopia hit Athens in 430
B.C., he
vividly describes patients suffering a sudden high fever
, shortness of breath and an array of sickly
discharges. Those who survived the sickness had endured such delirious fevers that they might have no
memory of it all.
Athens as a state was unprepared to meet the challenge of that plague. Thucydides describes the
futility of any human response: Appeals to the gods and the work of doctors – who died in droves –
were equally useless
. The disease wreaked havoc because the Athenians were massed within the city
walls to wait out the Spartan armies during the Peloponnesian War.
Yet despite the plague's terrible nature, Thucydides insists that the worst part was the despair
people felt from fear and the "
horror
of human beings dying like sheep
."
Sick people died of neglect, of the lack of proper shelter and of disease spreading from improper
burials in an unprepared and overcrowded city, followed by looting and lawlessness.
Athens, set up as a fortress against its enemies, brought ruin upon itself.
Making sense out of human flaws
Left out of plague accounts are the names of the multitudes who died in them. Homer, Sophocles and
Thucydides tell us that masses died. But plagues in ancient narratives are usually the beginning, not
the end of the story. A plague didn't stop the Trojan War, prevent Oedipus' sons from waging civil war
or give the Athenians enough reasons to make peace.
For years after the ravages of the plague, Athens still suffered from in-fighting, toxic politics
and selfish leaders. Popular politics led to the disastrous
Sicilian Expedition
of 415 B.C.,
killing thousands of Athenians – but still Athens survived.
A decade later, the Athenians again broke into civil factions and eventually prosecuted their own
generals after a naval victory in
406 B.C.
at Arginusae
. In 404 B.C., after a siege, Sparta defeated Athens. But, as we learn from Greek
myth, it was – again – really Athens' leaders and people who defeated themselves.
If comments reflect sentiments of moderate Republicans, Trump has no chances in November.
Notable quotes:
"... What over the last three years - and specifically in the last three weeks made you think Trump was going to come out of this on top? That would require him to actually be on top of things, which he never has been. Ever. And you thinking he's just doing 'poorly' just highlights your delusion that he is capable of being even mildly competent. ..."
"... Trump spent the first years of his presidency doing favors for Wall Street, Israel, and Saudi Arabia instead of focusing on the America First promises that got him elected. The trillions he wasted on advancing foreign interests was badly needed to rebuild American infrastructure, including America's disease testing capacity. ..."
"... Fair enough, we Americans may be stumbling along somewhat unsteadily into unchartered territory, but the important thing is we're now stumbling in the right general direction. We'll make it through this, people - most of us at least. All we can do as we enter into this miasma is our level best as responsible, compassionate humans, keeping a stiff upper lip and a stoic constitution. Amor fati : as precious as life is, death is always and evermore its close companion. ..."
"... All the hallmarks of a Trump operation, offensive, ineffective, poorly thought out and will be retracted in the end. The travel ban against China, did help when China was the only source of the disease, so kudos to Trump. However now the monster is in the castle so pulling up the drawbridge won't help anymore. ..."
Before the speech, I opined on Dreher's blog that Trump still had a chance of coming
out of this crisis on top politically--that he might demonstrably use the bully
pulpit of his office in a constructive manner, and be able to claim credit for a
successful outcome.
After the speech... well, it was widely panned in the more
liberal sectors of the media, and FOX News has this bit of tripe as its current
headline:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/...
The speech is mentioned in a sidebar, without
commentary. When the friendly media outlets ignore you, it's a good sign you've done
poorly.
What over the last three years - and specifically in the last three weeks made
you think Trump was going to come out of this on top? That would require him
to actually be on top of things, which he never has been. Ever. And you
thinking he's just doing 'poorly' just highlights your delusion that he is
capable of being even mildly competent.
When you base your team selection on political loyalty, you get fawning
toadies. Mr Redfield (CDC), a homophobe associated with a group that
regards HIV as God's judgement on gay people, was never going to be
competent at epidemic control. He doesn't even believe in it.
Note, I said "still had a chance". Such an observation should not be
interpreted as any sort of praise for Trump, but as an observation that
should he manage to string a couple coherent sentences together on the
teevee, more than a few talking heads in the newsmejia will offer unto
him hosannas about being "presidential".
Lots of people, still, grade
him on the curve. And that's including a fair number that aren't
die-hard partisans... but would rather have an exciting horse race to
write about this November.
But other than that, I agree with you. He's an imbecile, and isn't
going to stop being an imbecile over this. But lots of people will offer
up the tiniest shreds to argue otherwise.
Don't feel bad. That's where I was when he declared we were
leaving Syria the first time (when nothing happened). I thought
"Well if he carries this out he has a chance of doing something
good."
By the other time he said we were leaving Syria (when we
did....not and decided to let a wast start and steal oil fields) I
was done. Now I don't even trust the afgan deal to work out.
The raw mess up speech is a new low. He's normally good at
reading a script.
Correct me if I am wrong, but we can still travel to South Korea, etc. all we want?
Also, I know that Trump owns numerous properties in the UK, but how does that stack
up to Ireland (also, IIRC, not subject to the ban) and the rest of Europe? Does that
explain anything, or is it just a way of supporting his fellow imbecile BoJo?
Good thing that the UK doesn't get any foreign travelers.
Boris Johnson's government, to his credit, appears to be handling the crisis
well, or at least competently. While there is much that BoJo and Trump have in
common, there is also much they do not.
Neither leader is stupid. One is simply unprincipled and the other
suffers from a profound personality disorder. One can rise to the
crisis when it's in his interest to do so and the other thinks the
crisis is a plot to make him look bad.
i think you should recheck your sources on that topic and widen the
search to other sources too.
The brit bobs i have spoken with say the response there is a joke..
I will not bet my life on this tho, bc i am in Norway..
The response here have been slow but it seems to get better, no mass
testing yet so we dont know the real number of sick at all yet..
"The U.S. has the lowest per capita testing of any country."
Trump spent the first
years of his presidency doing favors for Wall Street, Israel, and Saudi Arabia
instead of focusing on the America First promises that got him elected. The
trillions he wasted on advancing foreign interests was badly needed to rebuild
American infrastructure, including America's disease testing capacity.
This is the problem and it has always been the problem with an uncurious President
who doesn't read and who works off hunches and believes he's a "stable genius". He
can't even be bothered to understand the contours of his own policies. After all,
it's just a game show.
Fair enough, we Americans may be stumbling along somewhat unsteadily into
unchartered territory, but the important thing is we're now stumbling in the right
general direction. We'll make it through this, people - most of us at least. All we
can do as we enter into this miasma is our level best as responsible, compassionate
humans, keeping a stiff upper lip and a stoic constitution.
Amor fati
: as
precious as life is, death is always and evermore its close companion.
A travel ban when the disease is here [makes no sense]. When infected citizens can travel
from and TO infected areas:
Where some countires are exempt so infected foreigners can just go to one of
those countries then come here:
Is not the right direction. It would be a half step forward in January. Now it's [like] installing a faulty smoke detector in
the middle of a roaring fire. We screwed up. We are still screwing up. Acting like It's ok and we will be
fine is not helping.
We don't need motivation posters. We don't need panic. We need the public
to realize this is NOT ok and to get these people at the top to realize this
is Not Ok behavior.
THEN, we can buckle down and hope for the best with that poster
All the hallmarks of a Trump operation, offensive, ineffective, poorly thought out
and will be retracted in the end.
The travel ban against China, did help when
China was the only source of the disease, so kudos to Trump. However now the monster
is in the castle so pulling up the drawbridge won't help anymore.
Oh, they have. This is from the email I got from the White House
listserv:
"Some 150,000 illegal immigrants from 72 nations with cases
of the coronavirus have been apprehended or deemed inadmissible from
entering the United States since November," according to officials.
These apprehensions underscore the need for border security and proper
vetting. Read more from Paul Bedard in the Washington Examiner.
It's one of those carefully-constructed sentences that can be
ambiguously parsed.
If you read it as "Some 150,000 illegal
immigrants from (72 nations with cases of the coronavirus) have
been apprehended", it's likely true but unremarkable. Many nations
now have coronovirus cases.
If you read it as "Some 150,000 (illegal immigrants from 72
nations) with cases of the coronavirus have been apprehended", it
would be remarkable if true, but is absolutely false based on what
we currently know.
And the November reference is particularly cheeky.
But the travel ban wasn't against China--meaning anyone there who could have
been exposed--it was against Chinese from anywhere in the country. Americans
and others potentially infected were free to enter the US from impacted areas
with no restrictions--quarantines, etc.
Just like the current ban against
Europe. US citizens/permanent residents are free to travel to/from without
restriction. We're only banning nationals from European countries. And there's
going to be a massive influx of those eligible returning from Europe in the
next couple of days--do you think any of them might, just might, be bring
Covid 19 back along with themselves?
Health care under uber-capitalism. We seem to have all the money in the world to
throw at military toys, but very little for the health of the nation. If Americans
keep voting for these priorities, the inevitable consequences will prevail. The US
may be just a bad social experiment.
As others have stated, no mention of paid sick leave which would go a long way
towards encouraging infected people to self-quarantine rather than go to work and
keep spreading the virus.
On an even more dire topic, a U.S. General is blaming
Iran for a rocket attack in Iraq that killed two U.S. serviceman. This is Trump's
'red line', if everyone does what they have publicly stated then Trump just gave
ISIS the golden key to force us into a war with Iran.
The US House has a bill to offer paid leave among other measures.
Republicans have said it goes beyond the scope of what's needed.
The Senate has said that they aren't reviewing anything until after the
week long break they are about to have.
True market insiders easily make just as much money in a downward
moving market as in an upward moving market. As long as it is
moving
, that is all that matters. That means that people are
buying and selling, and Wall Street is profiting from every
transaction. The people being hurt the most by the market losses
are the middle class folks whose 401k's are losing value.
Trump is much better at doing stuff for Israel and Saudi Arabia. He always has
plenty of time, money, and focus for doing what they want him to do. If he spent as
much time controlling our borders and defending the lives, health, and economic
well-being of Americans as he does on fighting wars for Israel and Saudi Arabia,
we'd be better prepared for this virus.
A looming shortage in lab materials is threatening to delay coronavirus test results
and cause officials to undercount the number of Americans with the virus.
CDC Director Robert Redfield told POLITICO on Tuesday that he is not confident that U.S.
labs have an adequate stock of the supplies used to extract genetic material from any virus
in a patient's sample -- a critical step in coronavirus testing.
"The availability of those reagents is obviously being looked at," he said, referring to
the chemicals used for preparing samples. "I'm confident of the actual test that we have,
but as people begin to operationalize the test, they realize there's other things they need
to do the test."
The growing scarcity of these "RNA extraction" kits is the latest trouble for U.S. labs,
which have struggled to implement widespread coronavirus testing in the seven weeks since
the country diagnosed its first case.
"... people who appear healthy can be asymptomatic so are therefore spreading the disease, which I believe that masks would help prevent. ..."
"... The problem is that there are no masks for everybody so these should be available for those who need them the most . This is a F*c*n*gly problematic issue and that is why there must be a campaign against massive mask usage. ..."
"... A healthy mucosal epithelium contains non-specific barriers to virus and other pathogens including our normal microbiota, enzymes and various types of fibers acting as a physico-chemical barrier for virus entry. In winter, these barriers are less efficient. ..."
"... The tide has now gone out, and has revealed that the US is swimming naked. ..."
By
Jerri-Lynn Scofield, who has worked as a securities lawyer and a derivatives trader. She is
currently writing a book about textile artisans.
I was chatting on Facebook the other day about the topic de jour – protecting friends,
family, and myself from coronavirus – with Dr. Sarah Borwein, an old friend and travel
buddy from my Oxford days. Sarah's a Canadian- trained doctor who has practiced family medicine
for more than 15 years in Hong Kong. She co-founded the Central Health Group.
I recently attended Sarah's wedding in that city in early January – and got out just
in time to avoid some of the more draconian travel restrictions that have since been imposed as
a result of the outbreak of the #COVID-19 coronavirus.. At least for now. And just before Hong
Kong imposed drastic restrictions that have allowed it to weather the coronavirus crisis while
recording only three deaths, so far.
She has an extensive professional history of dealing with infectious diseases in Asia. Prior
to commencing her practice in Hong Kong, she successfully ran the Infection Control program for
the only expatriate hospital in Beijing during the SARS period, also serving as liaison with
the World Health Organization. For a fuller account of her career and her thoughts on the
current crisis, see this interview in AD MediLink, Exclusive
Interview on COVID-19 with SARS Veteran Dr. Sarah Borwein .
I thought readers might be interested in some of the things Hong Kong is doing to combat the
virus.
Partial Lockdown
The city has been in partial lockdown from the middle of January, with schools and
universities, shut, employees encouraged to work from home, sports facilities and museums
closed down, and people told to avoid crowds according to the Financial Times, Hong Kong's
coronavirus response leads to sharp drop in flu cases . Hong Kong residents have accepted
these restrictions, since:
Hongkongers are particularly compliant with public health measures because the 2002-2003
Sars outbreak, which claimed almost 300 lives in the territory, is still fresh in many
people's minds.
The partial lockdown is neither easy nor cost-free, but it largely seems to have controlled
incidence of the disease, without paralysing Hong Kong. The city is close to mainland China and
has extensive economic and other ties. But so far, it has recorded only three deaths, according
to the South China Morning Post,
Coronavirus: Hong Kong records third death as five more cases confirmed, bringing total to
114 . And this for a city with population of roughly 7.5 million people.
Testing
There has been extensive texting for the coronavirus in Hong Kong – which is free.
This allows public health austhories to track the spread of the disease, and see that victims
get treated properly and promptly.
This record stands in contrast to the US, which has not yet managed to distribute tests
widely – let alone, as far as I can see, determine who will pay for testing.
The disease seems to have taken hold in In U.S., with cases exceeding 500 and deaths so far
recorded of 22, with 19 in Washington state, according to the New York Times, Cases of
Coronavirus Cross 500, and Deaths Rise to 22 .
The inability to test means that it's not possible to track the progress of the disease
properly, is as to determine from where a patient may have caught it. Nationwide in the US, a
fraction of people who are symptomatic or who may have been exposed to the virus have been
tested. Even India, which has so far managed to limit exposure of its population to foreign
sources of infection, has tested many more people – and is doing comprehensive screening
at its airports.
Which makes a lot of sense, as foreigners – tourists – are principal source of
the infection, Others are Indians returning from foreign climes, carrying with them the
disease. So far, India has reported 39 cases, a large cluster of which is an Italian tour group
that visited Rajasthan. Five other recent cases are non-resident Indians (NRIs), who returned
to India from Venice. We can only help as the temperature slowly rises as we approach the
Indian summer, that increase in temperature slows spread of the virus (see
Coronavirus cases rise to 39 as 5 found infected in Kerala ). Whether this will prove to be
the case is as yet unknown, but as Sarah discussed in her MediLink interview:
It is true that some viruses that are spread by respiratory droplets, as COVID-19 is
believed to, spread more easily when the air is cold and dry. In warm, humid conditions, they
fall to the ground more easily and that makes transmission harder.
But there is still a lot we don't know about exactly how COVID-19 is spread and the
effects climate may have on it. We do see it spreading in Singapore, which is warm and humid,
so who knows?
I should mention that there have been dark musing about the NRIs returning to the state of
Kerala from Venice – as they concealed their travel history and exposure. Kerala Health
Minister K.K. Shailaja has said these victims will be treated, but that this type of behavior
-- the deception – should be considered to be a crime.
Hong Kong has made it a criminal offence to lie to a health care provider about one's travel
or exposure history, according to Sarah; I wonder whether the US will attempt to do the
same?
Most of us have heard the advice for avoiding infection. I'm going to repeat this advice.
Those who know it all already, feel free to skip ahead. Those who've not seen such advice, pay
attention.
Wash your hands, with soap, properly and frequently. I posted this video last week, but some
readers may not have seen it:
WHO handwashing technique. Notice the attention to between the fingers, back of fingers,
and nails:
Hand sanitiser can be used as a stopgap until you can wash your hands, but the World Health
Organization says that only those that are 60% alcohol killl the virus. And hand washing is an
absolute must for hands that are visibly dirty.
Maintain social distance. Avoid crowds.
Cough or sneeze into a tissue, and dispose of it promptly and properly (I'm tossing mine
into my toilet, and flushing them away.).
Pay attention to your overall health. Eat well. Including plenty of fruits and vegetables.
Stay properly hydrated.
Get a 'flu shot if you haven't already. Although this won't protect you from coronavirus,
'flu can be a nasty disease in its own right, and catching it can land you in hospital or
quarantine. Not to mention getting sick with the 'flu overburdens health systems when resources
are needed elsewhere.
The procedures Hong Kong has put in place to control coronavirus have also led to a drastic
decline in 'flu cases,. In fact, its winter influenza season has ended more than a month
earlier than usual. 'Flu cases also dropped during the ARS crisis, according to the FT:
Data provided by the government's Centre for Health Protection show the incidence of
infection with influenza had fallen to less than 1 per cent by the end of February, marking
an end to the winter flu season, which normally extends to the end of March or into
April.
"A similar pattern happened in 2003 during Sars. All respiratory infection diseases were
down between March to September compared to 2002," said David Hui, a respiratory disease
expert from the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
"Influenza spread is one of the markers [of the coronavirus containment] as the same
principles of avoiding droplets and social contacts apply."
Ho Pak-leung, a leading microbiologist at the University of Hong Kong, said data showed
the flu season had shortened from an average of 98.7 days to 34 days this year.
Use of Masks?
Masks are not very useful, and many places are out of stock anyway, but Sarah says these can
prevent you from passing along any infection you might have to others. She says the advice to
avoid masks outright is wrong. There is a place for them, they're just not a panacea, and in
any case, if used improperly, they may actually increase your risk.
From her Medilink interview:
The shortage of masks has many people feeling quite anxious and unprotected. But masks are
NOT very effective at preventing transmission of viral infections, particularly when worn by
healthy people. They are by no means the most important measure you can take to protect your
health. In fact, if you wear a mask incorrectly, touch or adjust it frequently, re-use it, or
fail to wash your hands before putting it on and after taking it off, you may actually
increase your risk.
Who should wear a mask:
– People who are sick, to prevent them spreading their viral droplets when they
cough or sneeze.
– People caring for sick people at close quarters.
– In a health-care setting.
– People whose occupation requires them to have close contact with clients.
As it has become socially unacceptable in Hong Kong to NOT wear a mask, there may be
situations in which you might choose to wear a mask simply to make other people feel
comfortable. But in general, healthy people do not need to wear masks, except when they need
to be in crowded places, or with possibly sick people.
Infection Control Protocol?
This to me was the most striking thing I learned from our conversation. I don't think
anything like this infection control protocol is yet in place – certainly not throughout
the US, nor even in high-risk areas. And it it should be.
From a text from Sarah:
We have triage at the door. People with high-risk travel history can't be seen, have to go
directly to government hospital if symptomatic; or if just for routine care, wait 14 days
after return (all of which must be healthy). Low risk people with symptoms we isolate
immediately; they never enter the main clinic. And we wear PPE [i.e., personal protective
equipment] to see them.
In Hong Kong, people are being told to get tested if you think you have been exposed, and/or
are symptomatic. Anyone with a fever or respiratory symptoms is tested as a matter of course,
upon recommendation of a doctor.
To be fair, I should mention that Hong Kong did not initially test so extensively. Sarah
texted me:
Testing has been ramped up gradually. Initially they just added testing of all pneumonia
patients, regarless of epidemiological link. The testing of all mildly symptomatic patients
with no epidemiologic link is relatively new. A few weeks ago they started offering it in the
public hospital A&E's and public outpatient clinics. Then last week they extended that to
private sentinel clinics (of which we are one) and this week have extended it to all private
clinics
But in the US, even if your doctor wants to test you, no testing kit may be available to
conduct the test. This is simply insane, so many weeks, after the disease has taken root in so
many places, and after the World Health Organization made accurate tests available months
ago.
Hong Kong has also made it easier for patients to test themselves, without involving a
health care provider. From a message from Sarah:
They also pioneered a test that patients could do themselves – ie they self-collect
a "deep throat saliva" sample at home. That reduces risk of exposure to healthcare workers,
as taking nasopharyngeal swabs is "aerosol generating"
So there is considerable scope for United States to learn from Hong Kong's experience and
ramp up its testing – without appreciably increasing risk to its health care
providers.
One thing talking to Sarah has driven home to me is how poor the comparative US
infrastructure for dealing with such a disease is – although she didn't say so in so many
words. These are my words, but I don't think she would dispute the conclusion.
Contrast that to Hong Kong. From her MediLink interview:
The situation is much less serious in Hong Kong than in mainland China, especially Wuhan
and Hubei. We are quite exposed here, because of our close ties with the mainland, but we
have a very strong public health system, good resources, and deep experience in managing
epidemics. After SARS, Hong Kong set up the Centre for Health Protection (CHP) , which is our
version of the CDC in the United States .
When COVID-19 emerged, there was already an epidemic management plan in place that just had
to be activated. The four best prepared places in Asia are probably Hong Kong, Singapore,
Thailand and South Korea.
Her MediLink interview is upbeat in some ways. Perhaps a better description would be
measured. She points out that COVID-19 is less lethal than SARS. But because of that fact, it's
much easier to spread:
COVID-19 and SARS do
share some common features: they belong to the same family of viruses, they both seem to have
jumped from animals to humans, they both originated in China and both can cause severe
pneumonia.
But there are some important differences. SARS was more lethal than COVID-19, but less easily
transmitted. It went straight for the lungs, and caused severe pneumonia which became
transmissible only when patients were quite severely ill and usually by then in hospital.
About 10%
died .
COVID-19, on the other hand, seems to be more likely to replicate in the upper respiratory
tract and it seems like individuals might produce a lot of virus when they are only mildly
symptomatic. It's not known how many people with COVID-19 develop pneumonia, but of the ones
who do, about 20% get severely ill and fewer than 2% die. Overall death rates are still not
known for sure, but are probably less than 1%.
So COVID-19 is a lot less lethal than SARS, but harder to control because it spreads more
easily and by people with milder symptoms. That's why, despite being considerably less likely
to kill you than SARS was, COVID-19 has still in total killed
more people in 6 weeks than SARS did in eight months.
We should recognise considerable advances in infection control have been made since that
time. Alas, many countries seem not to have absorbed these lessons – including the United
States. Or if they did, that knowledge has failed to translate into effective responses. From
MediLink:
Another important difference is that medical science has advanced considerably in the 17
years since SARS. In 2003, it took months to identify the virus and develop a test. For
COVID-19 that happened within a couple of weeks. That has made identifying patients a great
deal easier. In addition, there are newer treatments and some vaccine prospects already in
the works.
Epidemic control is something that has confounded the US political system. The relevant
public health officials may know what needs to be done, they're not doing it. That may simply
be, at least in part, because resources are simply not available. It's also due to the way we
divide authority for such problems, with responsibility largelylodged at the state and local
level. And the reflexive reliance on neoliberal, market-based solutions is also at fault. There
are some things government is uniquely positioned to provide, but many are no longer capable of
recognising that simple fact.
Over to Sarah's MediLink interview again:
The most important thing we learned from SARS was that infectious diseases do not respect
borders or government edicts, and cannot be hidden. It requires international cooperation,
transparency and sharing of information to control an epidemic.
We also learned the importance of providing good, balanced, reliable information to the
public. In any epidemic, there is the outbreak of disease and then there is the epidemic of
panic. And nowadays, there is also what the WHO has termed the Infodemic , the explosion
of information about the epidemic. Some of it is good information, but some of it is rumour,
myth, speculation and conspiracy theory, and those things feed the anxiety. It can be hard to
sort out which information to believe, so it is important to choose trustworthy sources.
Panic and misinformation make controlling the outbreak more difficult.
On a day when markets are melting down, and people are succumbing to panic,I can only say,
keep calm. And to remind everyone: wash your hands!
The only query I would have with that is in reference to masks, is that people who appear
healthy can be asymptomatic so are therefore spreading the disease, which I believe that
masks would help prevent.
The problem is that there are no masks for everybody so these should be available for
those who need them the most . This is a F*c*n*gly problematic issue and that is why there
must be a campaign against massive mask usage.
It has to be repeated 100 1000 1000000s times
but we f*c**gl* avoid to understand this necessity.
Today has been a day of overreaction indeed. I would point as an addition to Sarah remarks
on disease spreading that regarding weather, temperature and humidity as important or even
more important than virus air transmission or fomites-led transmission is our susceptibility
to infection.
A healthy mucosal epithelium contains non-specific barriers to virus and other
pathogens including our normal microbiota, enzymes and various types of fibers acting as a
physico-chemical barrier for virus entry. In winter, these barriers are less efficient.
The
same virus load will not have the same effect in winter or in summer in the nasopharyngeal
tract. In this sense HK and NY are not comparable. Regarding the lessons of SARS epidemics,
if one of them is to keep calm that is a goos lesson. If another lessons is to identify the
sites that need stronger protection, that is another good lesson. A third good lesson would
be awareness on precautions to be taken personally. Anyway given differences between SARS1
and 2 in virulence and epidemiology there are not many more lessons to learn. Again comparing
Singapore or HK with NY in terms of potential fatalities is not spot on for weather
reasons.
The main failure in Italy first, or in Spain now, has IMO been on lack of awareness. No
overreaction is needed but good reaction would have made things better if the objective is to
reduce fatalities and avoid HC services being overwhelmed. Focus on safety in hospitals is a
must. Focusing on safety in residences for the elder is a second must (this has been noticed
too late for many).
This evening I will have a discussion with my son that wants to go to a concert next
saturday in a closed ambient. I think that the government will come to my rescue and forbid
this class of events.
Right the major fiasco was with CDC testing kits. I do not see any other. Exaggerating the
threat would only make hoarding panic that engult the USA worse. Of source Trump desire to
protect stock market at any human or other cost was cruel and silly, but Trump is cruel and silly
in many other areas as well.
Quarantine for retired persons might really help in areas with high number of
infections.
Notable quotes:
"... For the last several weeks, we have seen the president and top administration officials presenting the public with misleading and outright false information in an effort to conceal the magnitude of the problem and the extent of their initial failures. The president has been unwilling to tell the public the truth about the situation because he evidently cares more about the short-term political implications than he does about protecting the public: ..."
The AP
reports on more of the Trump White House's bungling of the coronavirus response:
The White House overruled health officials who wanted to recommend that elderly and
physically fragile Americans be advised not to fly on commercial airlines because of the new
coronavirus, a federal official told The Associated Press.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention submitted the plan this week as a way of
trying to control the virus, but White House officials ordered the air travel recommendation
be removed, said the official who had direct knowledge of the plan. Trump administration
officials have since suggested certain people should consider not traveling, but they have
stopped short of the stronger guidance sought by the CDC.
There is no good reason for the White House to prevent this recommendation from being made
public. This is another example of how the president and his top officials are trying to keep
up the pretense that the outbreak is much less dangerous than it actually is, and in doing so
they are helping to make the outbreak worse than it has to be.
For the last several weeks, we have seen the president and top administration officials
presenting the public with
misleading and outright false information in an effort to
conceal the magnitude of the problem and the extent of their initial failures. The
president has been
unwilling to tell the public the truth about the situation because he evidently cares more
about the short-term political implications than he does about protecting the public:
Even as the government's scientists and leading health experts raised the alarm early and
pushed for aggressive action, they faced resistance and doubt at the White House --
especially from the president -- about spooking financial markets and inciting panic.
"It's going to all work out," Mr. Trump said as recently as Thursday night. "Everybody has
to be calm. It's going to work out."
Justin Fox
comments on the president's terrible messaging:
The biggest problem, though, is simply the way that the president talks about the disease.
His instinct at every turn is to downplay its danger and significance.
Minimizing the danger and significance of the outbreak ensured that the government's
response was less urgent and focused than it could have been. It encouraged people to take it
less seriously and thus made it more likely that the virus would spread. Then when the severity
of the problem became undeniable, the earlier discredited happy talk makes it easier for people
to disbelieve what the government tells them in the future.
The administration had time to prepare a more effective response, but as I
said last week the administration frittered away the time they had. They were still
preoccupied with keeping the
virus out rather than trying to manage its spread once it arrived here, as it was inevitably
going to do:
"We have contained this. I won't say airtight but pretty close to airtight," White House
economic adviser Larry Kudlow said in a television interview on Feb. 25, echoing Trump's
tweeted declaration that the virus was "very much under control" in the United States.
But it wasn't, and the administration's rosy messaging was fundamentally at odds with a
growing cacophony of alarm bells inside and outside the U.S. government. Since January,
epidemiologists, former U.S. public health officials and experts have been warning, publicly
and privately, that the administration's insistence that containment was -- and should remain
-- the primary way to confront an emerging infectious disease was a grave mistake.
The initial response and the stubborn refusal to adapt to new developments have meant that
the U.S. is in a much worse position in handling this outbreak than many other countries. Max
Nisen
comments on the lack of testing in the U.S.:
Don't cheer just yet. The lower case count doesn't mean Americans are doing a better job
of containing the virus; rather, it reflects the fact that the U.S. is badly behind in its
ability to test people. The Centers for Disease Control stopped disclosing how many people it
has tested as of Monday, but an analysis by The Atlantic could only confirm 1,895 tests.
Switzerland, a country with fewer residents than New Jersey, has tested nearly twice as many
people. The U.K., which has far fewer cases, has tested over 20,000. This gap is particularly
worrisome given evidence of community spread in a number of different states and a high death
count, both of which suggest the number of cases will jump as more tests are conducted.
Capacity is finally ramping up, but only after weeks of delays prompted by unforced errors
and botched early test kits from the CDC. The continuing inability to test broadly is leading
to missed cases, more infections, and an outbreak that will be bigger than it needed to
be.
The administration not only bungled their initial response, but they have also been
extremely resistant to admitting error. Trump's appointees are reluctant to contradict the
president when he spouts nonsense about the outbreak, and that in turn makes it more difficult
for them to communicate clearly and consistently with the public. All of this serves to
undermine public trust in the government's response, and it prevents health officials from
being able to do their jobs without political interference. The federal government's response
has been
hampered by a president who wants to make people think that the problem isn't that bad and
is already being dealt with successfully:
At the White House, Trump and many of his aides were initially skeptical of just how
serious the coronavirus threat was, while the president often seemed uninterested as long as
the virus was abroad. At first, when he began to engage, he downplayed the threat -- "The
Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA," he tweeted in late February -- and became
a font of misinformation and confusion, further muddling his administration's response.
On Friday, visiting the CDC in Atlanta, the president spewed more falsehoods when he
claimed, incorrectly: "Anybody that needs a test, gets a test. They're there. They have the
tests. And the tests are beautiful."
When the president lies about such a serious matter, he is causing unnecessary confusion and
he is sending exactly the wrong message that remedying earlier failures is not an urgent
priority. Because Trump's primary concern is making himself look good in the short term, he is
willing to risk a worse outbreak. During his visit to the CDC, the president went on in an even
more bizarre vein to praise the tests by
comparing them to his "perfect call" with the Ukrainian president last summer that led to
his impeachment:
In an attempt to express confidence in the CDC's coronavirus test (the agency's second
attempt after the first one it developed failed), Trump offered an unorthodox comparison from
the last enormous crisis to swamp his presidency. The tests are just like his
impeachment-causing attempt to pressure a foreign government to help him get reelected. "The
tests are all perfect like the letter was perfect. The transcription was perfect. Right? This
was not as perfect as that but pretty good," Trump told reporters after falsely stating,
again, that anyone who needed a test right now could get one.
This morning the president was back at it this morning with more self-serving
misinformation:
We have a perfectly coordinated and fine tuned plan at the White House for our attack on
CoronaVirus. We moved VERY early to close borders to certain areas, which was a Godsend. V.P.
is doing a great job. The Fake News Media is doing everything possible to make us look bad.
Sad!
The president needs people to think that everything he does is perfect, so he is incapable
of acknowledging his failures and prefers to vilify accurate reporting about those failures. He
cannot help but mismanage
the government response because he cannot put the national interest ahead of his own
selfishness. An untold number of Americans will be paying a steep price for the president's
unfitness for office in the weeks and months to come.
I wish you had thought a bit into the future before you voted him. Did you really think
things wouldn't turn out EXACTLY the way they have? Honestly, it's to rime tell the truth
here.
It's the Democrats who should have thought a bit into the future. It was the identity and
known character and policies of Trump's opponent that tipped my vote to Trump. And no,
obviously I didn't think things would turn out "exactly" this way. I thought if I put up with
his repulsive manner I'd get maybe a third of his main campaign promises and that the GOP
establishment would get the hiding it deserves. Boy, was I wrong.
I take you believe Hillary Clinton was worse than Trump. Fair enough, but do you still think
our country would be in the state it is now? In what way could she possibly be worse than
what we have now with Trump?
It's better for Trumpism to have burst like a zit onto the mirror, no matter how disgusting,
because it was all there anyway under Bush and Cheney, it was there alongside "Barack the
magic... birth certificate!" You can fairly easily wash off the stain of Bush and Rumsfeld,
you can sort of start to forget their sublime horror, the exact same level of lies and utter
mismanagement, but you can't wash off a man like Trump, ever. His portrait will be in the
White House so future Americans can see what we're capable of, and hopefully be more vigilant
about the subtle and polished lies and civilized outrages. We needed this barbaric display to
get some clarity.
"The president has been about the situation because he evidently cares more about the
short-term political implications than he does about protecting the public"
It's no different from the first two years of his presidency. He already betrayed those of
us who voted for the America First promises on immigration and ending the wars. He spent most
of his doing favors for Wall Street, Israel, and Saudi Arabia instead. Now he's going to
betray the many vulnerable elders who voted for him, risking their illness and even death by
his selfish evasions and lies. He's a con artist. A fake.
Testing around the U.S. was hampered when local officials reported flaws in the kits the CDC
sent. Replacements didn't come until weeks later, which left most hospitals and clinics short
of tests. Shifting guidelines for who should get the few tests available also confused
hospitals, Diaz said.
At the time, there had still been just the single case reported in Seattle. Trevor Bedford,
a Harvard-trained researcher and viral genome expert at the city's Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center, wondered why. He had spent weeks analyzing genomes of patients from around the
world, tracing minor mutations to deduce how Covid-19 emerged and spread.
The early work found that infections were doubling roughly every six days, and that for
every three to four rounds of transmission -- or once every 20 to 30 days -- one minor mutation
was occurring, Bedford said in a Feb. 13 interview. "We are watching very carefully for more
local transmission," he said at the time.
They soon found it: a teenager with mild symptoms who attended a high school about 15 miles
from where the first case was identified -- someone who wouldn't have been tested because he or
she didn't meet the criteria. But the results showed up in the Seattle Flu Study, a project on
which Bedford is a lead scientist.
The new case, announced Feb. 28, was genetically identical to the original except for three
minor mutations in the virus. And it contained a key genetic variant that was present only in
two of 59 viral samples from China. This type of circumstantial evidence stops just short of
proving a chain of transmission. It's possible the Washington cluster didn't derive from the
known Patient Zero, but another case that came into Washington the same time and went
undetected. Still, Bedford calculated a 97 percent probability the new case was a direct
descendant -- one that hadn't been spotted because of the narrow testing at that time,
Bedford wrote
in a March 2 post.
"This lack of testing was a critical error and allowed an outbreak in Snohomish County and
surroundings to grow to a sizable problem before it was even detected," he wrote.
... ... ...
All told, 31 Kirkland firefighters -- almost a third of the department -- in
addition to 10 from other communities as well as some relatives have been quarantined, adding
to the stress on emergency teams.
Bedford, the genome expert, is working with University of Washington researchers to
understand the extent of the spread. Last week, the university started using its own virus
test, a modified version of one created by the World Health Organization. When a positive
result is found in a sample, the researchers perform a second round of tests to sequence the
viral genome.
Pavitra Roychoudhury, a university researcher in charge of sequencing, said technicians have
been working late into the night to complete as many samples and sequences as possible. She
puts her toddler to bed and then logs back into her computer.
On a call with reporters on Monday, Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC's National Center
for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, called Bedford's theory "an interesting hypothesis"
but said other possibilities have not been ruled out. "There are alternate explanations of the
same findings," she said. There may have been a "secondary seeding" in the community, she said,
as more recent cases in Washington match viral sequences posted in China.
So far, Bedford has reported, sequencing still suggests the transmission is related to the
original patient -- and the number of active infections could reach 1,100 by March 10 and 2,000
by March 15.
What's more, the state's early cases may have seeded infections now exploding on the
cruise ship Grand Princess off California's coast, he tweeted this week. Researchers from
the University of California at San Francisco have said the viral strain from a patient
infected on the ship is similar to the cluster circulating in Washington state. -- With
assistance by Emma Court and Michelle Fay Cortez
As COVID-19 begins its inevitable "community transmission" phase around the United States,
the purveyors of the conventional wisdom are largely focused on President Trump's (and by
extension,
prayerful Vice President Pence's) incompetence and his self-serving, empathy-free approach
to the coronavirus. And it is true that, as with all things Trump, it seems that all he really
cares about is the stock market and its effect on his reelection bid. But Trump's narcissism
obscures something both far more pernicious and far more permanent than his oft-televised
obsession with himself and that's the fact that he's been busily making Milton Friedman's
"Supply Side/The Bottom Line Is The Only Line" dream an intractable reality.
It was a dream that first took flight when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. The dream was
often made manifest by the neoliberal lurch and deregulatory impulses of President Bill
Clinton. But it is Trump who's come closest to fully realizing the dream of ending responsive
government. It should come as no surprise, though. Trump lifted, among other things ,
his " Make America
Great Again " slogan from the Gipper. He's also taken Reagan's anti-FDR pitch about the
dangers of government (see "The Deep State") and, with the help of a motley crew of Tea
Partiers, Evangelicals and corporate Republicans, transformed it into, as Steve Bannon calls
it, a "
War on the Administrative State ."
Since taking office and taking complete control of the news-cycle, Trump has been
systematically starving Federal agencies of resources, personnel and attention. He has, through
the sycophants
and
lobbyists he's installed around the Executive Branch, been pushing out career professionals
and barely replacing them with also-rans. And he is dismantling every aspect of government
he cannot
use to reward his corporate clients or punish political apostates.
The idea is to cripple the Federal government from within instead of doing the hard
legislative work of changing the laws that legally compel government action. As a result, many
of the regulations on the books are becoming
functionally irrelevant . Some laws are being rewritten by the lobbyists who used to lobby
against 'em, but mostly the Executive Branch is being systematically emaciated by the political
equivalent of chronic wasting disease.
It's an approach first pioneered by Reagan devotee Grover Norquist, who advocated "
starving the beast
" of government down to a manageable size before "drowning it" in a bathtub. It's an idea
currently being implemented with wide-ranging effect by Trump, who, like Reagan before
him , is
accelerating the bankrupting of the already debt-laden treasury with a combo of tax cuts
and massive spending on a world-dwarfing defense industry. Eventually, the theory goes, the
"safety net," a.k.a. "entitlements," and other "common good" spending will collapse under the
weight of the financial limitations generated by profuse borrowing to fund market-distorting
tax cuts and to dole out subsidies and tax gifts to cronies and key corporations. All the
while, the ever-less regulated chemical, oil, defense, agricultural and (most importantly of
all) financial industries will continue to hoard assets through the rinsing and repeating of
the supply side boom-and-bust scheme, a.k.a. the business cycle.
Frankly, this all looks like the endgame of a long plan to undo the demand side economy
created by the New Deal. Along with the seemingly (but not) contradictory spike in Unitary
Executive power (which is about protecting rackets, shielding enforcers from prosecution
and about enforcing political compliance), this is a transformation decades in the making and
Trump is the perfect salesman for this final episode even better than Reagan or Clinton because
his "flood the zone" narcissism is the ultimate, 24/7 distraction for a people addicted to
binge watching, inured to scripted reality shows and motivated by belligerent infotainment.
Reagan was the first actor to hit his marks on a stage set for him by the interlocking
forces of Big Oil, Big Defense and Wall Street. Not coincidentally, this same Venn Diagram of
power has profited mightily from Trump's Presidency. Rather than an actor, though, Trump is the
barking emcee of the final season of the American Dream Gameshow a program that was initially
cancelled in 1980, but somehow kept running in syndication on one of the two crappy channels a
"free" people have been given to chose from. But now, the final credits are closer to rolling
that ever before.
As such, Trump is the omega to Reagan's alpha. And any coronavirus-related "incompetence"
you see being reported is a feature, not a bug, of this Re-Great'd America. And that's because
Trump is not an outlier. He is a culmination.
JP Sottile is a freelance journalist, published historian, radio co-host and
documentary filmmaker (The Warning, 2008). His credits include a stint on the Newshour news
desk, C-SPAN, and as newsmagazine producer for ABC affiliate WJLA in Washington. His weekly
show, Inside the Headlines w/ The Newsvandal, co-hosted by James Moore, airs every Friday on
KRUU-FM in Fairfield, Iowa. He blogs under the pseudonym " the Newsvandal ".
"... During the 2019-2020 influenza season, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 15 million people came down with flu, of whom 140,000 required hospitalisation. 8,200 deaths were recorded. Over a 4-month period, that averages to 2,050 deaths per month. This is in a country with 1/4 of the population of China's. ..."
"... If the White House failed to recognise a major health crisis already simmering on its own doorstep, what hope can be held for when the coronavirus epidemic starts sweeping through the inland US, taking out the elderly, the poor and the homeless? ..."
The White House should not have needed to look very far to China to prepare for a
coronavirus epidemic within the US.
During the 2019-2020 influenza season, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
estimate that 15 million people came down with flu, of whom 140,000 required hospitalisation.
8,200 deaths were recorded. Over a 4-month period, that averages to 2,050 deaths per month.
This is in a country with 1/4 of the population of China's.
If the White House failed to recognise a major health crisis already simmering on its own
doorstep, what hope can be held for when the coronavirus epidemic starts sweeping through
the inland US, taking out the elderly, the poor and the homeless?
When Trump was first elected I figured it was a 1 term deal. After all, why does a
billionaire want to waste all of his twighlight years as President for any longer. But the
Dems failed to run anyone that could relieve him from duty. What to do? Well Covid-19.
Knowing how fearful Americans are, not taking a overhyped health care crisis seriously is
political suicide. Yet he chooses to do so. If politicians know nothing they know the people
demand "to be kept safe". Yet Trump seems oblivious, opening himself up to defeat.
... ... ...
Otherwise I guess people might vote for Biden if they get scared enough, and if they get
the chance to vote. Stay tuned though.
So it goes. I cannot for the life of me understand why, leaving aside the public health
aspects of the president's response, people cannot see what a political disaster he's
making for himself and the GOP. He doesn't have to act like the zombie apocalypse is upon us.
He only has to behave like Rudy Giuliani did as Mayor of New York City in the fall of 2001.
But then, as we know, Donald Trump saw the Twin Towers fall, and thought about himself:
I just watched that 9/11 clip. I'd never seen or heard it and I figured, oh boy, what
asinine, self-centered things did he say back then. That's what I've come to expect from
him. But -- I don't really see the problem. They asked him about his nearby tower, and his
observation that it was the second tallest downtown after the WTC is typical of him. But he
didn't dwell on that. And the rest of the interview was just fine, typical platitudes of
that day, in response to some typical stupid (and obsequious) questions from the reporters.
If he sounded like that more often over the last 3 years, I'd be much happier.
Despite his many faults, Trump was once a much better, more articulate communicator.
There's an old recording of a Larry King interview in which he sounds like an entirely
different person from what we see today.
That's my impression as well. I haven't seen this remarked on much, in all the virtual ink
spilled about Trump. Sometimes in old age, one's distinguishing traits and habits become
more pronounced (or as my mother says, one becomes "the same but more so"). Not sure if
that's the case with Trump. It could also be that his cognitive and verbal abilities have
declined, or that he hit on a winning formula and has stuck with it.
If nothing else, this election will give us a lot of opportunity to think about what old
men are like.
Trump closed the White House office of pandemic control simply because Obama started it.
That fact alone should tell you all you need to know about the competence of Trump and his merry band of bootlickers.
For nearly two months Trump did nothing while it spread.
All that crap about "America First", but after three years there's no wall, immigrants still pouring in, illegals, foreign
workers, and foreign students everywhere you look, and we're still dependent on foreign supply chains and manufacturing.
And we wonder how the disease got here and why we are economically vulnerable to it. Making matters worse, while he was doing
all those favors for Wall Street and foreign countries and spending trillions on the wars he was elected to end, he was also gutting
government departments and programs that do stuff for actual Americans, like protect them from plagues.
"The federal agency shunned the World Health Organization test guidelines used by other countries and set out to create a more
complicated test of its own"
I know we are in full information war against China and we already have senators drafting sanctions against them but if we
really wanted to treat this as a medical and not a political issue we would copy the Chinese test kits.
The CDC today deleted essential information on the outbreak's spread from their website.You conservatives are going to be blamed
for this. Try, just try telling a grieving parent or child that this is somehow the 'cost of freedom' or 'the Democrats are to
blame (Hillary is really at fault).
You did this to our country, don't count on people forgetting about it by November.
'You're a bunch of dopes and babies': Inside Trump's stunning tirade against generals
There is no more sacred room for military officers than 2E924 of the Pentagon, a windowless and secure vault where the Joint Chiefs
of Staff meet regularly to wrestle with classified matters. Its more common name is "the Tank." The Tank resembles a small corporate
boardroom, with a gleaming golden oak table, leather swivel armchairs and other mid-century stylings. Inside its walls, flag officers
observe a reverence and decorum for the wrenching decisions that have been made there.
Hanging prominently on one of the walls is The Peacemakers, a painting that depicts an 1865 Civil War strategy session with President
Abraham Lincoln and his three service chiefs -- Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, Major General William Tecumseh Sherman, and
Rear Admiral David Dixon Porter. One hundred fifty-two years after Lincoln hatched plans to preserve the Union, President Trump's
advisers staged an intervention inside the Tank to try to preserve the world order.
By that point, six months into his administration, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Director of the National Economic Council
Gary Cohn, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had grown alarmed by gaping holes in Trump's knowledge of history, especially the
key alliances forged following World War II. Trump had dismissed allies as worthless, cozied up to authoritarian regimes in Russia
and elsewhere, and advocated withdrawing troops from strategic outposts and active theaters alike.
Trump organized his unorthodox worldview under the simplistic banner of "America First," but Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn feared
his proposals were rash, barely considered, and a danger to America's superpower standing. They also felt that many of Trump's impulsive
ideas stemmed from his lack of familiarity with U.S. history and, even, where countries were located. To have a useful discussion
with him, the trio agreed, they had to create a basic knowledge, a shared language.
So on July 20, 2017, Mattis invited Trump to the Tank for what he, Tillerson, and Cohn had carefully organized as a tailored tutorial.
What happened inside the Tank that day crystallized the commander in chief's berating, derisive and dismissive manner, foreshadowing
decisions such as the one earlier this month that brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. The Tank meeting was a
turning point in Trump's presidency. Rather than getting him to appreciate America's traditional role and alliances, Trump began
to tune out and eventually push away the experts who believed their duty was to protect the country by restraining his more dangerous
impulses.
The episode has been documented numerous times, but subsequent reporting reveals a more complete picture of the moment and the
chilling effect Trump's comments and hostility had on the nation's military and national security leadership.
Just before 10 a.m. on a scorching summer Thursday, Trump arrived at the Pentagon. He stepped out of his motorcade, walked along
a corridor with portraits honoring former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, and stepped inside the Tank. The uniformed officers greeted
their commander in chief. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph F. Dunford Jr. sat in the seat of honor midway down the table,
because this was his room, and Trump sat at the head of the table facing a projection screen. Mattis and the newly confirmed deputy
defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, sat to the president's left, with Vice President Pence and Tillerson to his right. Down the
table sat the leaders of the military branches, along with Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. White House chief strategist
Stephen K. Bannon was in the outer ring of chairs with other staff, taking his seat just behind Mattis and directly in Trump's line
of sight.
Mattis, Cohn, and Tillerson and their aides decided to use maps, graphics, and charts to tutor the president, figuring they would
help keep him from getting bored. Mattis opened with a slide show punctuated by lots of dollar signs. Mattis devised a strategy to
use terms the impatient president, schooled in real estate, would appreciate to impress upon him the value of U.S. investments abroad.
He sought to explain why U.S. troops were deployed in so many regions and why America's safety hinged on a complex web of trade deals,
alliances, and bases across the globe.
An opening line flashed on the screen, setting the tone: "The post-war international rules-based order is the greatest gift of
the greatest generation." Mattis then gave a 20-minute briefing on the power of the NATO alliance to stabilize Europe and keep the
United States safe. Bannon thought to himself, "Not good. Trump is not going to like that one bit." The internationalist language
Mattis was using was a trigger for Trump.
"Oh, baby, this is going to be f---ing wild," Bannon thought. "If you stood up and threatened to shoot [Trump], he couldn't say
'postwar rules-based international order.' It's just not the way he thinks."
For the next 90 minutes, Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn took turns trying to emphasize their points, pointing to their charts and
diagrams. They showed where U.S. personnel were positioned, at military bases, CIA stations, and embassies, and how U.S. deployments
fended off the threats of terror cells, nuclear blasts, and destabilizing enemies in places including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the
Korea Peninsula, and Syria. Cohn spoke for about 20 minutes about the value of free trade with America's allies, emphasizing how
he saw each trade agreement working together as part of an overall structure to solidify U.S. economic and national security.
Trump appeared peeved by the schoolhouse vibe but also allergic to the dynamic of his advisers talking at him. His ricocheting
attention span led him to repeatedly interrupt the lesson. He heard an adviser say a word or phrase and then seized on that to interject
with his take. For instance, the word "base" prompted him to launch in to say how "crazy" and "stupid" it was to pay for bases in
some countries.
Trump's first complaint was to repeat what he had vented about to his national security adviser months earlier: South Korea should
pay for a $10 billion missile defense system that the United States built for it. The system was designed to shoot down any short-
and medium-range ballistic missiles from North Korea to protect South Korea and American troops stationed there. But Trump argued
that the South Koreans should pay for it, proposing that the administration pull U.S. troops out of the region or bill the South
Koreans for their protection.
"We should charge them rent," Trump said of South Korea. "We should make them pay for our soldiers. We should make money off of
everything."
Trump proceeded to explain that NATO, too, was worthless. U.S. generals were letting the allied member countries get away with
murder, he said, and they owed the United States a lot of money after not living up to their promise of paying their dues.
"They're in arrears," Trump said, reverting to the language of real estate. He lifted both his arms at his sides in frustration.
Then he scolded top officials for the untold millions of dollars he believed they had let slip through their fingers by allowing
allies to avoid their obligations.
"We are owed money you haven't been collecting!" Trump told them. "You would totally go bankrupt if you had to run your own business."
(Penguin Press)
Mattis wasn't trying to convince the president of anything, only to explain and provide facts. Now things were devolving quickly.
The general tried to calmly explain to the president that he was not quite right. The NATO allies didn't owe the United States back
rent, he said. The truth was more complicated. NATO had a nonbinding goal that members should pay at least 2 percent of their gross
domestic product on their defenses. Only five of the countries currently met that goal, but it wasn't as if they were shorting the
United States on the bill.
More broadly, Mattis argued, the NATO alliance was not serving only to protect western Europe. It protected America, too. "This
is what keeps us safe," Mattis said. Cohn tried to explain to Trump that he needed to see the value of the trade deals. "These are
commitments that help keep us safe," Cohn said.
Bannon interjected. "Stop, stop, stop," he said. "All you guys talk about all these great things, they're all our partners, I
want you to name me now one country and one company that's going to have his back."
Trump then repeated a threat he'd made countless times before. He wanted out of the Iran nuclear deal that President Obama had
struck in 2015, which called for Iran to reduce its uranium stockpile and cut its nuclear program.
"It's the worst deal in history!" Trump declared.
"Well, actually . . .," Tillerson interjected.
"I don't want to hear it," Trump said, cutting off the secretary of state before he could explain some of the benefits of the
agreement. "They're cheating. They're building. We're getting out of it. I keep telling you, I keep giving you time, and you keep
delaying me. I want out of it."
Before they could debate the Iran deal, Trump erupted to revive another frequent complaint: the war in Afghanistan, which was
now America's longest war. He demanded an explanation for why the United States hadn't won in Afghanistan yet, now 16 years after
the nation began fighting there in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Trump unleashed his disdain, calling Afghanistan a "loser
war." That phrase hung in the air and disgusted not only the military leaders at the table but also the men and women in uniform
sitting along the back wall behind their principals. They all were sworn to obey their commander in chief's commands, and here he
was calling the war they had been fighting a loser war.
"You're all losers," Trump said. "You don't know how to win anymore."
Trump questioned why the United States couldn't get some oil as payment for the troops stationed in the Persian Gulf. "We spent
$7 trillion; they're ripping us off," Trump boomed. "Where is the f---ing oil?"
Trump seemed to be speaking up for the voters who elected him, and several attendees thought they heard Bannon in Trump's words.
Bannon had been trying to persuade Trump to withdraw forces by telling him, "The American people are saying we can't spend a trillion
dollars a year on this. We just can't. It's going to bankrupt us."
"And not just that, the deplorables don't want their kids in the South China Sea at the 38th parallel or in Syria, in Afghanistan,
in perpetuity," Bannon would add, invoking Hillary Clinton's infamous "basket of deplorables" reference to Trump supporters.
Trump mused about removing General John Nicholson, the U.S. commander in charge of troops in Afghanistan. "I don't think he knows
how to win," the president said, impugning Nicholson, who was not present at the meeting.
Dunford tried to come to Nicholson's defense, but the mild-mannered general struggled to convey his points to the irascible president.
"Mr. President, that's just not . . .," Dunford started. "We've been under different orders."
Dunford sought to explain that he hadn't been charged with annihilating the enemy in Afghanistan but was instead following a strategy
started by the Obama administration to gradually reduce the military presence in the country in hopes of training locals to maintain
a stable government so that eventually the United States could pull out. Trump shot back in more plain language.
"I want to win," he said. "We don't win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and we're not
winning anymore."
Trump by now was in one of his rages. He was so angry that he wasn't taking many breaths. All morning, he had been coarse and
cavalier, but the next several things he bellowed went beyond that description. They stunned nearly everyone in the room, and some
vowed that they would never repeat them. Indeed, they have not been reported until now.
"I wouldn't go to war with you people," Trump told the assembled brass.
Addressing the room, the commander in chief barked, "You're a bunch of dopes and babies."
For a president known for verbiage he euphemistically called "locker room talk," this was the gravest insult he could have delivered
to these people, in this sacred space. The flag officers in the room were shocked. Some staff began looking down at their papers,
rearranging folders, almost wishing themselves out of the room. A few considered walking out. They tried not to reveal their revulsion
on their faces, but questions raced through their minds. "How does the commander in chief say that?" one thought. "What would our
worst adversaries think if they knew he said this?"
This was a president who had been labeled a "draft dodger" for avoiding service in the Vietnam War under questionable circumstances.
Trump was a young man born of privilege and in seemingly perfect health: six feet two inches with a muscular build and a flawless
medical record. He played several sports, including football. Then, in 1968 at age 22, he obtained a diagnosis of bone spurs in his
heels that exempted him from military service just as the United States was drafting men his age to fulfill massive troop deployments
to Vietnam.
Tillerson in particular was stunned by Trump's diatribe and began visibly seething. For too many minutes, others in the room noticed,
he had been staring straight, dumbfounded, at Mattis, who was speechless, his head bowed down toward the table. Tillerson thought
to himself, "Gosh darn it, Jim, say something. Why aren't you saying something?"
But, as he would later tell close aides, Tillerson realized in that moment that Mattis was genetically a Marine, unable to talk
back to his commander in chief, no matter what nonsense came out of his mouth.
The more perplexing silence was from Pence, a leader who should have been able to stand up to Trump. Instead, one attendee thought,
"He's sitting there frozen like a statue. Why doesn't he stop the president?" Another recalled the vice president was "a wax museum
guy." From the start of the meeting, Pence looked as if he wanted to escape and put an end to the president's torrent. Surely, he
disagreed with Trump's characterization of military leaders as "dopes and babies," considering his son, Michael, was a Marine first
lieutenant then training for his naval aviator wings. But some surmised Pence feared getting crosswise with Trump. "A total deer
in the headlights," recalled a third attendee.
Others at the table noticed Trump's stream of venom had taken an emotional toll. So many people in that room had gone to war and
risked their lives for their country, and now they were being dressed down by a president who had not. They felt sick to their stomachs.
Tillerson told others he thought he saw a woman in the room silently crying. He was furious and decided he couldn't stand it another
minute. His voice broke into Trump's tirade, this one about trying to make money off U.S. troops.
"No, that's just wrong," the secretary of state said. "Mr. President, you're totally wrong. None of that is true."
Tillerson's father and uncle had both been combat veterans, and he was deeply proud of their service.
"The men and women who put on a uniform don't do it to become soldiers of fortune," Tillerson said. "That's not why they put on
a uniform and go out and die . . . They do it to protect our freedom."
There was silence in the Tank. Several military officers in the room were grateful to the secretary of state for defending them
when no one else would. The meeting soon ended and Trump walked out, saying goodbye to a group of servicemen lining the corridor
as he made his way to his motorcade waiting outside. Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn were deflated. Standing in the hall with a small
cluster of people he trusted, Tillerson finally let down his guard.
"He's a f---ing moron," the secretary of state said of the president.
The plan by Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn to train the president to appreciate the internationalist view had clearly backfired.
"We were starting to get out on the wrong path, and we really needed to have a course correction and needed to educate, to teach,
to help him understand the reason and basis for a lot of these things," said one senior official involved in the planning. "We needed
to change how he thinks about this, to course correct. Everybody was on board, 100 percent agreed with that sentiment. [But] they
were dismayed and in shock when not only did it not have the intended effect, but he dug in his heels and pushed it even further
on the spectrum, further solidifying his views."
A few days later, Pence's national security adviser, Andrea Thompson, a retired Army colonel who had served in Afghanistan and
Iraq, reached out to thank Tillerson for speaking up on behalf of the military and the public servants who had been in the Tank.
By September 2017, she would leave the White House and join Tillerson at Foggy Bottom as undersecretary of state for arms control
and international security affairs.
The Tank meeting had so thoroughly shocked the conscience of military leaders that they tried to keep it a secret. At the Aspen
Security Forum two days later, longtime NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell asked Dunford how Trump had interacted during the
Tank meeting. The Joint Chiefs chairman misleadingly described the meeting, skipping over the fireworks.
"He asked a lot of hard questions, and the one thing he does is question some fundamental assumptions that we make as military
leaders -- and he will come in and question those," Dunford told Mitchell on July 22. "It's a pretty energetic and an interactive
dialogue."
One victim of the Tank meeting was Trump's relationship with Tillerson, which forever after was strained. The secretary of state
came to see it as the beginning of the end. It would only worsen when news that Tillerson had called Trump a "moron" was
first reported in October 2017 by NBC News.
The risk is limited - this kills the old and infirm.
MOA was accurate in all the panic - China controlled its initial outbreak (although a
re-entry is not unlikely imo). That the rest of the world didn't react fast enough, is
expected though, but saying that before it was a thing would have been unnecessarily
scare-mongering I'd say.
Hi B,
looks like the guys at New England Biolabs have a very rapid assay for COVID-19 --- Rapid
Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Virus RNA Using Colorimetric LAMP
Yinhua Zhang, Nelson Odiwuor, Jin Xiong, Luo Sun, Raphael Ohuru Nyaruaba, Hongping Wei,
Nathan A Tanner
Its a preprint -- but this is the way to go an isothermal loop mediated amplification
(LAMP) assay. You ought to be able to get a result in about 30 minutes -- faster once they
really automate it. Should cost virtually nothing a few cents.
Other versions of it might be adapted so you can use them in the field so a general
practitioner or even a soldier will be able to make the diagnosis at the bed side-- its a
simple color change in a tube. All you need is a pipette the assay tube a hot block and a
timer. True positive rate 99.99% false positive about 1% or less. This what the CDC needs.
Problem is that they have to mass produce the assay tubes -- we need 100 million like
yesterday. The other thing is that we might need martial law to quarantine people and we need
to train people to use the kits and fast.
All of a sudden, "freedom isn't free" axiom acquires a really macabre meaning. The inevitable
devastation in countries with laissez-faire approach to this emergency will eventually prove
"totalitarian" Chinese measures as being vastly superior.
The US will undoubtedly - if grudgingly - adopt Beijing MO, but only after hundreds of
thousands of people die needlessly, and America's healthcare system falls apart under the
pressure of millions of patients unable to pay exorbitant bills.
The American mind does not know what "public health" is.
"Public health" is not a thinkable thought. b's paragraph beginning with "Tests must be
freely available..." is a sequence of events that cannot exist even in fiction in America.
Only someone who has never lived here could write that paragraph. None of b's suggestions are
happening. And because these simple measures cannot happen, a price will be paid.
The overreaction to this will cause much, much more damage than the virus would have if it
were responded to in a conventional, sensible way. Those in positions of responsibility are
terrified of underreacting, and it's easy to rationalize that it's better to be safe than
sorry.
If measures taken cause unnecessary disruption, if they increase the level of stress, the
levels of disease and the amount of death will rise rather than fall. There is more to
disease than just microbes.
This is not to say that we should be laissez-faire. Our response to the yearly outbreak of
the flu is, in my opinion, insufficient. Schools are an unprecedented institution of
prolonged propinquity. Children go to school, are with their classmates in enclosed rooms all
day, and bring the disease home. Children survive, but grandma and grandpa might not. Schools
can be shuttered during outbreaks, and the technology exists, at least for the relatively
fortunate, to continue the instruction online. People should also be encouraged to avoid
stressful prolonged propinquity situations such as travel on planes, trains, and interstate
buses.
It's occurred to me that the death rate statistics might be misleading. Since China closed
their schools, one can assume that the disease rate among children fell substantially.
However, elderly people who live in care facilities, which is a high density living
situation, would not enjoy the falling infection rate, and they are exactly the population
most susceptible to a fatal outcome. This alone, perhaps, might make the death rate higher
for COVID19 than for the flu.
The US healthcare system, the privatized system of exploitation of the sick for greater
investor profits, is not capable of dealing with a pandemic. Trump and his gang of thieves,
charlatans, and unapologetically incompetent followers of Ayn Rand and graduates of the Koch
Brothers University, will prevent the socialization of medicine if they possibly can. Will a
future cover of Time Magazine show them all hanging from lamp posts?
Whether this pandemic provokes the rapture of Pence & his 144,000 elect and the much
anticipated End Times, or whether it fizzles out, I do heartily wish for one outcome: the
disenfranchisement of Donald J Trump, his heirs & assigns, and all those who seem unable
to smell the stink of his bullshit.
CDC estimates 30 million flu cases each year with 30,000 deaths and 500,000
hospitalizations. I think we are a long way from any real concern. The US is nowhere near as
polluted or densely populated as China. Also, I don't think we know how the disease spreads
among non Asians. They are keeping that under wraps. Aside from those captives on the cruise
ship there really has not been much spread from those who returned from China (visitors or
citizens).
Agreed that the US leadership is clueless and their thrashing around in order to protect
corporate capitalism is xenophobic and dangerous to the world. Came across this research on a
plant bioflavonoid that you might find useful in the treatment of SARS COV-1 (aka
COVID-19).
It's always Groundhog Day in the USA.
It's always late August 2005.
It's always New Orleans.
It's always Hurricane Katrina [or something else] on the horizon.
It's always a Republican Administration in power.
Who needs external enemies when we have such internal incompetents available to do the work
of sabotage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)
Neither Reps nor Dems are psychologically capable even of conceiving the kinds of measures
the post calls for. Trump's stooge already proclaimed that profit is the one and only goal of
any response ("the market must decide"), while the Dem leadership as well can speak and think
only in terms of making care "affordable", IOW the main purpose of the whole process still
has to be corporate control and profit, even if a few stray Dems do want government to
subsidize some victims. The purpose still is money changing hands, profit, commerce. Until
the Big One levels the karma of this place that will never change.
It seems almost like fate is teeing up one practice play each time, just to show the US
how hollowed out it is, before the real play begins. First was the Iranian reprisal strike
which could have been so much more devastating. And now, although it's too early to tell how
severe this pest ultimately will be, it looks so far like it won't completely cleanse the
place. But if so that won't be for the lack of the US economic and cultural system giving it
every opportunity it can use.
I have no doubt the US learns zero from either test case. By now the US is too berserk and
stupid to deduce anything from its very survival than confirmation of the excellence of its
policy and encouragement to further escalate and accelerate.
The idea that Uncle Sam will do something useful and timely is simply laughable. I have been
mostly housebound due to severe illness for the past five years. Imagine a five year
quarantine! In all that time I have had zero social support besides receiving a disability
pension. I hire a personal shopper every two weeks to bring groceries; everything else comes
via UPS or FedEx. I frequently go two weeks at a time and never see anyone except maybe a
delivery driver.
There is no system to take care of housebound people. For me there is no medical personal
to make housecalls, no social support, no personal care workers, nothing. And this at a time
when nationwide there are only small numbers of people like myself. Multiply this non-system
by 100 or 1000 and people will die at home and no one will even notice.
Uncle Sam's Day of Reckoning may be fast approaching. And we will have well-earned every
bit of suffering headed our way.
Funny thing, b was right - China (and online deliveries as well really) managed to snuff the
spread out well, and it seems that the rest of the world and their 'representative
bureaucracies' will show all how limited they are when a fast acting 'unknown unknown'
(Rummy, how you made sense here!) does its thing.
If "Trump recession" materialize, he and Melania can start packing. As as he will most
probably repeat Bush II blunders in handling the epidemics, his chances are already lower that
they were before.
"Trump is highly concerned about the market and has encouraged aides not to give predictions
that might cause further tremors .In a Twitter post, he misspelled the word 'coronavirus' as
'caronavirus' and wrote that two cable news stations "are doing everything possible to make the
Caronavirus look as bad as possible, including panicking markets, if possible. Likewise their
incompetent Do Nothing Democrat comrades are all talk, no action. USA in great shape!"
As far as the markets, I would be concerned with the China supply chain to the US. At most
there is 5-weeks, three on the ocean and a week on each side getting board ship, unloading, and
customs. Perhaps companies will have 2 -4 weeks in stock already. We are two-3 weeks into this.
China plants are more than likely closed or are half-staffed. Ships woill not call on Chinese
ports till the crisis is over or is pronounced safe.
run75441 , February 28, 2020 6:39 am
PGL:
Yep, he believes he is doomed if the economy tanks. It is actually an opportunity
for him to shine if only he knew how to be presidential and lead the nation.
EMichael , February 28, 2020 9:31 am
So Trump keeps trying to reassure investors about the market when there is not a single
person in the world that would pay attention to his comments on the market.
Trump might not survive the Coronavirus, literally (he is over 70 and has a high range of
contacts; the mortality to this age group is close to 10%), or figuratively as voters might
not forgive him inadequate and/or incompetent response (which is given) .
Unfortunately, Bernie is at even higher risk as mortality for 80+ is over 15%, and
pre-existing cardiovascular disease is a serious negative factor.
One can wonder if this will be " Strawthat broke the camel'sback " for Trump. With 10% drop of S&P500 (aka "correction") it is difficult to
talk about booming economy on rallies ( 20% decline marker defines a recession and some
stocks -- like oil sector are already in this territory ). High yield bonds are also going
down, although more slowly. Now suddenly, Trump has nothing to talk about on his rallies, and
he knows it.
A part of rich retirees who are overexposed to stocks constitutes a sizable part of
remaining avid "Trumpers" voter block (kind of double stupidity, if you wish :-) , and some
of them might not forgive Trump the liberty of depriving them honestly earned in 2019 ~10% of
their 401K accounts.
IMHO troubles for Trump just started. Being incompetent DJT and his merry band of grifters
will almost definitely botch the response.
They already made three blunders.
1. When asked if, and when, a vaccine is produced, would the vaccine be affordable to
everyone? They replied; We'll let the "market" decide that. And some part of electorate
probably noted that.
2. The last December, they cut the budget for the CDC (center for disease control).
In this sense appointing Pence as the head of the coronavirus response may be a smart move
by Trump. When and if the pandemic hits big time, exposing the mass incompetence and
unpreparedness of the US government, in combination with the tanking of the stock market,
Trump can, of course, blame Christian Zionist neoconservative Israeli apartheid supporter
Pence for his troubles :-)
But, unfortunately, that will not do him any good.
"... It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die. ..."
"... It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS. ..."
Admittedly the news cycle in the United States seldom runs longer than twenty-four hours, but that should not serve as an excuse
when a major story that contradicts what the Trump Administration has been claiming appears and suddenly dies. The public that actually
follows the news might recall a little more than one month ago the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official named Qassem
Soleimani. Openly killing someone in the government of a country with which one is not at war is, to say the least, unusual, particularly
when the crime is carried out in yet another country with which both the perpetrator and the victim have friendly relations. The
justification provided by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for the administration, was that Soleimani was in Iraq planning
an "imminent" mass killing of Americans, for which no additional evidence was provided at that time or since.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that
might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently
knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani
to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent
threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die.
The incident that started the killing cycle
that eventually included Soleimani consisted of a December 27th attack on a US base in Iraq in which four American soldiers and two
Iraqis were wounded while one US contractor, an Iraqi-born translator, was killed. The United States immediately blamed Iran, claiming
that it had been carried out by an Iranian supported Shi'ite militia called Kata'ib Hezbollah. It provided no evidence for that claim
and retaliated by striking a Kata'ib base, killing 25 Iraqis who were in the field fighting the remnants of Islamic State (IS). The
militiamen had been incorporated into the Iraqi Army and this disproportionate response led to riots outside the US Embassy in Baghdad,
which were also blamed on Iran by the US There then followed the assassinations of Soleimani and nine senior Iraqi militia officers.
Iran retaliated when it fired missiles
at American forces , injuring more than one hundred soldiers, and then mistakenly
shot down a passenger
jet , killing an additional 176 people. As a consequence due to the killing by the US of 34 Iraqis in the two incidents, the
Iraqi Parliament also
voted to expel
all American troops.
It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out
by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic
State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack
took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni
IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS.
This new development was reported in the New York Times in
an article that was
headlined "Was US Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran? Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised
doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events." In spite of the sensational nature of the report it
generally was ignored in television news and in other mainstream media outlets, letting the Trump administration get away with yet
another big lie, one that could easily have led to a war with Iran.
Iraqi investigators found and identified the abandoned white Kia pickup with an improvised Katyusha rocket launcher in the vehicle's
bed that was used to stage the attack. It was discovered down a desert road within range of the K-1 joint Iraqi-American base that
was hit by at least ten missiles in December, most of which struck the American area.
There is no direct evidence tying the attack to any particular party and the improvised KIA truck is used by all sides in the
regional fighting, but the Iraqi officials point to the undisputed fact that it was the Islamic State that had carried out three
separate attacks near the base over the 10 days preceding December 27th. And there are reports that IS has been increasingly active
in Kirkuk Province during the past year, carrying out near daily attacks with improvised roadside bombs and ambushes using small
arms. There had, in fact, been reports from Iraqi intelligence that were shared with the American command warning that there might
be an IS attack on K-1 itself, which is an Iraqi air base in that is shared with US forces.
The intelligence on the attack has been shared with American investigators, who have also examined the pick-up truck. The Times
reports that the US command in Iraq continue to insist that the attack was carried out by Kata'ib based on information, including
claimed communications intercepts, that it refuses to make public. The US forces may not have shared the intelligence they have with
the Iraqis due to concerns that it would be leaked to Iran, but senior Iraqi military officers are nevertheless perplexed by the
reticence to confide in an ally.
If the Iraqi investigation of the facts around the December attack on K-1 is reliable, the Donald Trump administration's reckless
actions in Iraq in late December and early January cannot be justified. Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking
for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted
in a war that would benefit no one. To be sure, the Trump administration has lied about developments in the Middle East so many times
that it can no longer be trusted. Unfortunately, demanding any accountability from the Trump team would require a Congress that is
willing to shoulder its responsibility for truth in government backed up by
a media that is willing to take on an administration that regularly punishes anyone or any entity that dares to challenge it
Well, the 9/11 Commission lied about Israeli involvement, Israeli neocons lied America into Iraq, and Netanyahu lied about Iranian
nukes, so this latest news is just par for the course.
Pompeo had evidence of immediate catastrophic attack. That turned out to be a lie and plain BS.
Why should we believe Pompeo or White House or intelligence about the situation developing around 27-29 Dec ? Is it because it's
USA who is saying so?
[it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind
of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.]
The Jewish mafia stooge and fifth column, Trump, is a war criminal and an ASSASSIN.
Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official
to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.
Soleimani was a soldier involved in covert operations, Iran's most celebrated hero, and had been featured in the Iraq media
as the target of multiple Western assassination attempts. He did not have diplomatic status.
As it happens Iran did not declare war on America and America did not declare war on Iran. If Americans soldiers killed in
Iraq should not have been there in the first place, then the same goes for an Iranian soldier killed there too.
@04398436986 There is western assertion and western assertion only that Iran influences Iraqi administration and intelligence
. It can be a projection from a failing America . It can be also a valid possibility .
But lying is America's alter ego . It comes easily and as default explanation even when admitting truth would do a better job
.
Now let's focus on ISIS 's claims . Why is Ametica not taking it ( claim of ISIS) as truth and fact when USA has for last 19
years has jailed , bombed, attacked mentally retarded , caves and countries because somebody has pledged allegiance to Al Quida
or to ISIS!!!
It seems neither truth nor lies , but what suits a particular psychopath at a particular time – that becomes USA's report (
kind of unassigned sex – neither truth nor lies – take your pick and find the toilet to flush it down memory hole) – so Pompeo
lies to nation hoping no one in administration will ask . When administrative staff gets interested to know the truth , Pompeo
tells them to suck it up , move on and get ready to explain the next batch of reality manufactured by a regime and well trained
by philosopher Karl Rove
To what "conspiracy" are you referring? It's a well established fact that your ilk was, at the very least, aware that the 9/11
attacks would occur and celebrated them in broad daylight. No conspiracy theory needed. Mossad ordnance experts were living practically
next door to the hijackers. Well established fact.
It's also undeniable that the 9/11 Commission airbrushed Israeli involvement from their report. No conspiracy theory there,
either.
Same goes for Israeli neocons and their media mandarins using "faulty intel" to get their war in Iraq. "Clean Break"? "Rebuilding
America's Defenses"? Openly written and published. Judith Miller's lies? Also no conspiracy.
And Israel's own intelligence directors were undermining Netanyahu's lies on Iran. Not a conspiracy in sight.
contemplating the outcome of normal everyday competition, influenced by good & bad luck, is just too much truth for some
psychological makeups
That's one of the lamest attempts at deflection I've seen thus far, and I've seen quite a few here.
Those who deny the official version of 9/11 are in the majority now:
We've reached critical mass. Clearly, that's just too much truth for your psychological makeup. Were we really that worthy
of ignoring, your people wouldn't be working 24/7/365 to peddle your malarkey in fora of this variety.
I have thought that Trump's true impeachable crime was the illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat. Pence
should also be impeached for the botched coup in Venezuela. That was true embarrassment bringing that "El Presidente" that no
one recognizes to the SOTU.
USA is basically JU-S-A now, Jews own and run this country from top to bottom, side to side, and because of it, pretty much
run the world. China-Russia-Iran form their new "Axis of Evil" to be brought in line. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Covid-19
is a bioweapon, except not one created by China. Israel has been working on an ethnic based bioweapon for years. US sent 172 military
"athletes" to the Military World Games in Wuhan in October, 2019, two weeks before the first case of coronavirus appeared. Almost
too coincidental.
@Sean He wasn't there as a soldier -- he was there in a diplomatic role. (regardless of his official "status"). It
also appears he was lured there with intent to assaninate.
Your last para is not only terrible logic but ignores the point of the article. Iran likely was not responsible for the US deaths.
Even had it been responsible it would still not legitimate such a baldly criminal action.
[I]illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat
Lawful combat according to the Geneva Convention in which war is openly declared and fought between two countries each of which
have regular uniformed forces that do all the actual fighting is an extremely rare thing. It is all proxy forces, deniability
and asymmetric warfare in which one side (the stronger) is attacked by phantom combatants.
The Israeli PM publically alluded to the fact that Soleimani had almost been killed in the Mossad operation to kill
Imad Mughniyeh a decade ago. The
Iranian public knew that Soleimani had narrowly escaped death from Israeli drones, because Soleimani appeared on Iranian TV in
October and told the story. A plot kill him by at a memorial service in Iran was supposedly foiled. He came from Lebanon by way
of Syria into Iraq as if none of this had happened. Trump had sacked Bolton and failed to react to the drone attack on Saudi oil.
Iran seems to have thought that refusal to actually fight in the type of war that the international conventions were designed
to regulate is a licence to exert pressure by launch attacks without being targeted oneself. Now do they understand.
@Sean American troops invaded Iraq under false pretenses, killed thousands, and caused great destruction. Chaos and vengeful
Sunnis spilled over into Syria where the US proceeded to grovel before the terrorists we fret about. Soleimani was effective in
organizing resistance in Iraq and Syria and was in both countries with the blessing of their governments.
How you get Soleimani shouldn't be there out of that I have no idea.
@04398436986 Yet you ignore that the Neocons have lied about virtually every cause if war ever. Lied about Iraq, North Korea
and Iran nuclear info actions, about chem weapons in Syria, lied about Kosovo, lied about Libya, lied about Benghazi, lied about
Venezuela. So Whom I gonna believe, no government, but a Neocon led one least of all
It is common knowledge that ISIS is a US/Israeli creation. ISIS is the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. Thus, the US/Israel
staged the attack on the US base on 12.27.2019.
ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #2: ISIS Never Attacks Israel
It is more than highly strange and suspicious that ISIS never attacks Israel – it is another indication that ISIS is controlled
by Israel. If ISIS were a genuine and independent uprising that was not covertly orchestrated by the US and Israel, why would
they not try to attack the Zionist regime, which has attacked almost of all of its Muslim neighbors ever since its inception
in 1948? Israel has attacked Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and of course has decimated Palestine. It has systemically tried to
divide and conquer its Arab neighbors. It continually complains of Islamic terrorism. Yet, when ISIS comes on the scene as
the bloody and barbaric king of Islamic terrorism, it finds no fault with Israel and sees no reason to target a regime which
has perpetrated massive injustice against Muslims? This stretches credibility to a snapping point.
ISIS and Israel don't attack each other – they help each other. Israel was treating ISIS soldiers and other anti-Assad rebels
in its hospitals! Mortal enemies or best of friends?
The MQ-9 pilot and sensor operator will be looking over their shoulders for a long time. They're as famous as Soleimani. Their
command chain is well known too, hide though they might far away.
And who briefed the president that terror Tuesday? The murder program isn't Air Force.
@anonymous The kind of crap Trump pulled in the assassination of Soleimani is what he should be impeached about–not the piss-ant
stuff about Hunter Biden's job in the Ukaranian gas company and his pappy's role in it.
Iraq an ally of the United States! Is it some kind of a joke? How can a master and slave be equal? We, the big dog want their
oil and the tail that wags us, Israel, want all Muslims pacified and the Congress, which is us wether we like or not, compliant
out of financial fears. Unless we curb our own greedy appetite for fossil fuels and at the same time tell an ally, which Israel
is by being equal in a sense that it can get away with murder and not a pip is raised, to limit its ambition, nothing is going
to be done to improve the situation. Until then it's an exercise in futility, at best!
Iran has NO choice but to defend itself from the savages. It has not been Iran that invaded US, but US with a plan that design
years before 9/11 invaded many countries. Remember: seven countries in five years. Soleimani was a wise man working towards peace
by creating options for Iran to defend itself. Iran is not the aggressor, but US -Israel-UK are the aggressor for centuries now.
Is this so difficult to understand. 9/11 was staged by US/Israel killing 3000 Christians to implement their criminal plan.
Soleimani, was on a peace mission, where was assassinated by Trump, an Israeli firster and a fifth column and the baby killer
Netanyahu. Is this difficult to understand by the Trump worshiper, a traitor.
Now, Khamenie is saying the same thing: "Iran should be strong in military warfare and sciences to prevent war and maintain
PEACE.
Only ignorant, arrogant, and racists don't understand this fact and refuse to understand how the victims have been pushed to
defend themselves.
The Assassin at the black house should receive the same fate in order to bring the peace.
When does Amerikastan *not* lie about anything? If an Amerikastani tells you the sun rises in the east, you're probably on Venus,
where it rises in the west.
I think this article is getting close to the truth, that this whole operation was and is an ISIS (meaning Israeli Secret Intelligence
Service) affair designed to pit America against the zionists' most formidable enemy thus far, Iran.
I'm of the opinion that Trump did not order the hit on Soleimani, but was forced to take credit for it, if he didn't want to
forfeit any chance of being reelected this year. The same ISIS (Israeli) forces that did the hit also orchestrated the "retaliation"
that Mr. Giraldi so heroically documents in this piece.
As usual, this is looking more and more like a zionist /jewish false flag attack on the Muslim world, with the real dirty-work
to be done by the American military.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan
that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House
apparently knew about may even have approved.
It's now obvious that the slumlord son-in-law Jared Kushner is really running the USA's ME policy.
Kushner is not only a dear friend of at-large war criminal Bibi Nuttyahoo, he also belongs to the Judaic religious cult of Chabad
Lubavitcher, whom make the war-loving Christian Evangelicals almost look sane. Chabad also prays for some kind of Armageddon to
bring forth their Messiah, just like the Evangelicals.
One can tell by Kushner's nasty comments he makes about Arabs/Persians and Palestinians in particular, that he loathes and
despises those people and has an idiotic ear to cry into in the malignant form of Zion Don, AKA President Trump.
It's been said that Kushner is also a Mossad agent or asset, which is a good guess, since that agency has been placing their
agents into the WH since at least the days of Clinton, who had Rahm Emmanuel to whisper hate into his ear.
That the Iranian General Soleimani was lured into Iraq so the WH could murder the man probably most responsible for halting
the terrorist activities of the heart-eating, head-chopping US/Israel/KSA creation ISIS brings to mind the motto of the Israeli
version of the CIA, the Mossad.
"By way of deception thou shalt make war."
Between Trump's incompetence, his vanity–and yes, his stupidity– and his appointing Swamp creatures into his cabinet and
allowing Jared to run the ME show, Trump is showing himself to be a worse choice than Hillary.
If that maniac gets another 4 years, humanity is doomed. Or at least the USA for sure will perish.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime
Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing
conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew
about may even have approved.
It's now obvious that the slumlord son-in-law Jared Kushner is really running the USA's ME
policy.
Kushner is not only a dear friend of at-large war criminal Bibi Nuttyahoo, he also belongs to
the Judaic religious cult of Chabad Lubavitcher, whom make the war-loving Christian
Evangelicals almost look sane. Chabad also prays for some kind of Armageddon to bring forth
their Messiah, just like the Evangelicals.
One can tell by Kushner's nasty comments he makes about Arabs/Persians and Palestinians in
particular, that he loathes and despises those people and has an idiotic ear to cry into in
the malignant form of Zion Don, AKA President Trump.
It's been said that Kushner is also a Mossad agent or asset, which is a good guess, since
that agency has been placing their agents into the WH since at least the days of Clinton, who
had Rahm Emmanuel to whisper hate into his ear.
That the Iranian General Soleimani was lured into Iraq so the WH could murder the man
probably most responsible for halting the terrorist activities of the heart-eating,
head-chopping US/Israel/KSA creation ISIS brings to mind the motto of the Israeli version of
the CIA, the Mossad.
"By way of deception thou shalt make war."
Between Trump's incompetence, his vanity–and yes, his stupidity– and his
appointing Swamp creatures into his cabinet and allowing Jared to run the ME show, Trump is
showing himself to be a worse choice than Hillary.
If that maniac gets another 4 years, humanity is doomed. Or at least the USA for sure will
perish.
I've heard and read about a claim that Trump actually called PM Abdul Mahdi and demanded that
Iraq hand over 50 percent of their proceeds from selling their oil to the USA, and then
threatened Mahdi that he would unleash false flag attacks against the Iraqi government and
its people if he did not submit to this act of Mafia-like criminal extortion. Mahdi told
Trump to kiss his buttocks and that he wasn't going to turn over half of the profits from oil
sales.
This makes Trump sound exactly like a criminal mob boss, especially in light of the fact
that the USA is now the world's #1 exporter of oil – a fact that the arrogant Orange
Man has even boasted about in recent months. Can anyone confirm that this claim is accurate?
If so, then the more I learn about Trump the more sleazy and gangster like he becomes.
I mean, think about it. Bush and Cheney and mostly jewish neocons LIED us into Iraq based
on bald faced lies, fabricated evidence, and exaggerated threats that they KNEW did not
exist. We destroyed that country, captured and killed it's leader – who used to be a
big buddy of the USA when we had a use for him – and Bush's crime gang killed close to
2 million innocent Iraqis and wrecked their economy and destroyed their infrastructure. And,
now, after all that death, destruction and carnage – which Trump claimed in 2016 he did
not approve of – but, now that Trump is sitting on the throne in the Oval office
– he has the audacity and the gall to demand that Iraq owes the USA 50 percent of their
oil profits? And, that he won't honor and respect their demand to pull our troops out of
their sovereign nation unless they PAY US back for the gigantic waste of tax payers money
that was spent building permanent bases inside their country?
Not one Iraqi politician voted for the appropriations bill that financed the construction
of those military bases; that was our mistake, the mistake of our US congress whichever POTUS
signed off on it.
...Trump learned the power of the purse on the streets of NYC, he survived by playing ball
with the Jewish and Italian Mafia. Now he has become the ultimate Godfather, and the world
must listen to his commands. Watch and listen as the powerful and mighty crumble under US
Hegemony.
Right TG, traditionally, as you said up there first, and legally too, under the supreme law
of the land. Economic sanctions are subject to the same UNSC supervision as forcible
coercion.
UN Charter Article 41: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the
use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon
the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or
partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio,
and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
US "sanctions" require UNSC authorization. Unilateral sanctions are nothing but illegal
coercive intervention, as the non-intervention principle is customary international law,
which is US federal common law.
The G-192, that is, the entire world, has affirmed this law. That's why the US is trying
to defund UNCTAD as redundant with the WTO (UNCTAD is the G-192's primary forum.) In any
case, now that the SCO is in a position to enforce this law at gunpoint with its
overwhelmingly superior missile technology, the US is going to get stomped and tased until it
complies and stops resisting.
In 2018 total US petroleum production was under 18 million barrels per day, total
consumption north of 20 mmb/d. What does it matter if the US exports a bunch of super light
fracked product the US itself can't refine if it turns around and imports it all back in
again and then some.
The myths we tell ourselves, like a roaring economy that nevertheless generates a $1
trillion annual deficit, will someday come back to bite us. Denying reality is not a winning
game plan for the long run.
I long tought that US foreign policies were mainly zionist agenda – driven, but the
Venezuelan affair and the statements of Trump himself about the syrian oil (ta be "kept"
(stolen)) make you think twice.
Oil seems to be at least very important even if it's not the main cause of middle east
problems
So maybe it's the cause of illegal and cruel sanctions against Iran : Get rid of
competitor to sell shale oil everywhere ?( think also of Norstream 2 here)
Watch out US of A. in the end there is something sometimes referred to as the oil's
curse . some poor black Nigerians call oil "the shit of the devil", because it's such a
problem – related asset Have you heard of it ? You get your revenues from oil easily,
so you don't have to make effort by yourself. And in the end you don't keep pace with China
on 5G ? Education fails ? Hmm
Becommig a primary sector extraction nation sad destiny indeed, like africans growing cafe,
bananas and cacao for others. Not to mention environmental problems
What has happened to the superb Nation that send the first man on the moon and invented
modern computers ?
Disapointment
Money for space or money for war following the Zio. Choose Uncle Sam !
Difficult to have both
Everyone seems to forget how we avoided war with Syria all those years ago It was when John
Kerry of all people gaffed, and said "if Assad gives up all his chemical weapons." That was
in response to a reporter who asked "is there anything that can stop the war?" A intrepid
Russian ambassador chimed in loud enough for the press core to hear his "OK" and history was
averted. Thinking restricting the power of the President will stop brown children from dying
at the hands of insane US foreign policy is a cope. "Bi-partisanship" voted to keep troops in
Syria, that was only a few months ago, have you already forgotten? Dubya started the drone
program, and the magical African everyone fawns over, literally doubled the remote controlled
death. We are way past pretending any elected official from either side is actually against
more ME war, or even that one side is worse than the other.
The problem with the supporters Trump has left is they so desperately want to believe in
something bigger than themselves. They have been fed propaganda for their whole lives, and as
a result can only see the world in either "this is good" or "this is bad." The problem with
the opposition is that they are insane. and will say or do anything regardless of the truth.
Trump could be impeached for assassinating Sulimani, yet they keep proceeding with fake and
retarded nonsense. Just like keeping troops in Syria, even the most insane rabid leftoids are
just fine with US imperialism, so long as it's promoting Starbucks, Marvel and homosex, just
like we see with support for HK. That is foreign meddling no matter how you try to justify
it, and it's not even any different messaging than the hoax "bring
democracyhumanrightsfreedom TM to the poor Arabs" justification that was used in Iraq. They
don't even have to come up with a new play to run, it's really quite incredible.
@OverCommenter
A lot of right-wingers also see military action in the Middle East as a way for America to
flex its muscles and bomb some Arabs. It also serves to justify the insane defence budget
that could be used to build a wall and increase funding to ICE.
US politics has become incredibly bi-partisan, criticising Trump will get you branded a
'Leftist' in many circles. This extreme bipartisanship started with the Obama birth
certificate nonsense which was being peddled by Jews like Orly Taitz, Philip J. Berg, Robert
L. Shulz, Larry Klayman and Breitbart news – most likely because Obama was pursuing the
JCPOA and not going hard enough on Iran – and continued with the Trump Russian agent
angle.
Now many Americans cannot really think critically, they stick to their side like a fan
sticks to their sports team.
The first person I ever heard say sanctions are acts of war was Ron Paul. The repulsive
Madeleine Albright infamously said the deaths of 500,000 Iranian children due to US sanctions
was worth it. She ought to be tried as a war criminal. Ron Paul ought to be Secretary of
State.
Age is starting to catch up to Trump. He appears to be tiring and his rhetoric is becoming
repetitive. He might have to resort to energy boosting drugs which is illegal in sporting
contests but his opponents might demand a doping test. Bloomberg and Sanders are also old men
but they might cause Trump to become confused and disoriented. If that happens Trump will
quit the debates and go into the elections based on his low black unemployment achievements.
Trump is in many ways a narcissistic scumbag...but given the alternative of any of these
degenerate limp wristed faggots and gun grabbing communists who want to pay reparations for
slavery to people who were never slaves, transgender 7 year olds and have their mental
illness rammed down our throats, open borders, and whatever assorted lunacy is in vogue with
their purple haired minions ?
There is a real danger for gangstrism mode of forign policy -- policimakers live in a bubble,
an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are based on faulty inputs...
Diplomacy, accommodation, compromise, mutuality, the perspectives of others: It is already
clear these are among the defining features of 21 st century statecraft. Jealous of
its dissipating preeminence, the U.S. proves indifferent to all such considerations. There is
no longer even the pretense of deriving authority by way of example, so radical is Washington's
preference for coercive might alone. The paradox is not difficult to grasp: In displays of
unadorned power we also find the limits of power. The Trump administration's conduct of foreign
policy -- primarily but not only in the Mideast -- makes failure and an American comeuppance
inevitable.
... ... ...
Many years ago, during the first term of George W. Bush, Karl Rove gave
an interview in which he asserted that the U.S. was no longer bound by "discernible
reality," as the White House aide put it. "That's not the way the world really works anymore,"
Rove explained. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while
you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out."
Rove Warning Overlooked
This singularly arrogant remark was much noted at the time but was thought to reflect only
the kookier extremes of the Bush II administration. What a misinterpretation that has proven to
be. Rove was effectively warning us that the U.S. had already begun its fundamental shift
toward sheer power as the instrument of its foreign policies. This is plain in hindsight.
... These policies share two features. They rest on power alone -- in this they are Karl
Rove's dream made flesh -- and they are bound to fail, if they are not already failing.
It is evident now that the European allies will
defy U.S. efforts to sabotage NordStream 2 and keep Huawei out of 5–G.
London announced last week that it will allow Huawei to participate in its 5–G
development program. Germany made
a similar decision last autumn.
In the Middle East, it is equally clear that Iran has no intention of buckling under U.S.
sanctions and military threats. U.S. influence in the region has already begun to decline since
the drone assassination of a top Iranian general on Iraqi soil early last month. The Pentagon
now faces popular
Iraqi demands to withdraw its troops.
And now the Mideast -- Israel and Palestine. The Trump administration sacrificed all claim
to "honest broker" status when it recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital in December 2017 --
a unilateral move that prompted the Palestinians to stop talking to the U.S. about the plan
Jared Kushner was by then developing. Of all that is wrong with the new Trump–Kushner
plan, the absence of Palestinian input more or less assures that it will prove dead on
arrival.
Power alone is power blind. Power blind is certain to fail, for it cannot see its way.
There is a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those
they serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are
based on faulty inputs. Needless to say it's even worse when they believe they can
create their own reality and invent outcomes out of whole cloth.
Things seldom go as planned in these circumstances.
President Trump was sold a bill of goods on the assassination of Iran's
revered military leader, Qassim Soleimani, likely by a cabal around Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo and the
long-discredited neocon David Wurmser. A former Netanyahu advisor and Iraq war
propagandist, Wurmser reportedly sent memos to his mentor, John Bolton, while Bolton was
Trump's National Security Advisor (now, of course, he's the hero of the #resistance for having
turned on his former boss) promising that killing Soleimani would be a cost-free operation that
would catalyze the Iranian people against their government and bring about the long-awaited
regime change in that country. The murder of Soleimani – the architect of the defeat of
ISIS – would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them
upon which the [Iranian] regime depends for stability and survival," wrote Wurmser.
As is most often the case with neocons, he was dead wrong.
The operation was not cost-free. On the contrary. Assassinating Soleimani on Iraqi soil
resulted in the Iraqi parliament – itself the product of our "bringing democracy" to the
country – voting to expel US forces even as the vote by the people's representatives was
roundly rejected by the people who brought the people the people's representatives. In a manner
of speaking.
Trump's move had an effect opposite to the one promised by neocons. It did not bring
Iranians out to the street to overthrow their government – it catalyzed opposition across
Iraq's various political and religious factions to the continued US military presence and
further tightened Iraq's relationship with Iran. And short of what would be a catastrophic war
initiated by the US (with little or no support from allies), there is not a thing Trump can do
about it.
Iran's retaliatory attack on two US bases in Iraq was initially sold by President Trump as
merely a pin-prick. No harm, no foul, no injuries. This despite the fact that he must have
known about US personnel injured in the attack. The reason for the lie was that Trump likely
understands how devastating it would be to his presidency to escalate with Iran. So the truth
began to trickle out slowly – 11 US military members were injured, but it was just "like
a headache." Now we know that 50 US troops were treated for traumatic brain injury after the
attack. This may not be the last of it – but don't count on the mainstream media to do
any reporting.
The Iranian FARS news agency reported at the time of the attack that US personnel had been
injured and the response by the US government was to completely take that media outlet off the
Internet
by order of the US Treasury !
Last week the US House
voted to cancel the 2002 authorization for war on Iraq and to prohibit the use of funds for
war on Iran without Congressional authorization. It is a significant, if largely symbolic, move
to rein in the oft-used excuse of the Iraq war authorization for blatantly unrelated actions
like the assassination of Soleimani and Obama's
thousands of airstrikes on Syria and Iraq .
President Trump has argued that prohibiting funds for military action against Iran actually
makes war more likely, as he would be restricted from the kinds of
military-strikes-short-of-war like his attack on Syria after the alleged chemical attack in
Douma in 2018 (claims which have recently
fallen apart ). The logic is faulty and reflects again the danger of believing one's own
propaganda. As we have seen from the Iranian military response to the Soleimani assassination,
Trump's military-strikes-short-of-war are having a ratchet-like effect rather than a
pressure-release or deterrent effect.
As the financial and current events analysis site ZeroHedge
put it recently:
[S]ince last summer's "tanker wars", Trump has painted himself into a corner on Iran,
jumping from escalation to escalation (to this latest "point of no return big one" in the
form of the ordered Soleimani assassination) -- yet all the while hoping to avoid a major
direct war. The situation reached a climax where there were "no outs" (Trump was left with
two 'bad options' of either back down or go to war).
The Iranians have little to lose at this point and America's European allies are, even if
impotent, fed up with the US obsession with Saudi Arabia and Israel as a basis for its Middle
East policy.
So why open this essay with a photo of Trump celebrating his dead-on-arrival "Deal of The
Century" for Israel and Palestine? Because this is once again a gullible and weak President
Trump being led by the nose into the coming Middle East conflagration. Left without even a
semblance of US sympathy for their plight, the Palestinians after the roll-out of this "peace"
plan will again see that they have no friends outside Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. As Israel
continues to flirt with the idea of simply annexing large parts of the West Bank, it is
clear that the brakes are off of any Israeli reticence to push for maximum control over
Palestinian territory. So what is there to lose?
Trump believes he's advancing peace in the Middle East, while the excellent Mondoweiss
website rightly
observes that a main architect of the "peace plan," Trump's own son-in-law Jared Kushner,
"taunts Palestinians because he wants them to reject his 'peace plan.'" Rejection of the plan
is a green light to a war of annihilation on the Palestinians.
It appears that the center may not hold, that the self-referential echo chamber that passes
for Beltway "expert" analysis will again be caught off guard in the consequence-free profession
that is neocon foreign policy analysis. "Gosh we didn't see that coming!" But the next day they
are back on the teevee stations as great experts.
It is hard to believe that Trump has any confidence in Jared Kushner. Yet, he does enough
to go public with a one-sided plan developed without Palestinian input.
a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those they
serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are
based on faulty inputs.
The same is true of the economists and financial analysts who live in the bubble of the
NSYE and the echo chamber of Manhattan. All of their conclusions are based on faulty
inputs.
If Trump continues to be 'dumb' enough to consistently hire these people and
consistently listen to them, and if his supporters continue to be dumb enough to
consistently believe all the lies and excuses, then Trump and his supporters are 100%
involved in the neoCON.
Bolton is a war mongering narcissist that wanted his war, didn't get it, & is now
acting like a spoilt child that didn't get his way & is laying on the floor kicking &
screaming!
Trump excoriates Bolton in tweets this morning:
"For a guy who couldn't get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn't get
approved for anything since, 'begged' me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him
despite many saying 'Don't do it, sir,' takes the job, mistakenly says 'Libyan Model' on T.V.,
and ... many more mistakes of judgement [sic], gets fired because frankly, if I listened to
him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty &
untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?"
IMO, Trump is a fantastic POTUS for this day and age, but he wasn't on his A game when he
brought Bolton onboard. He should have known better and, was, apparently, warned. Maybe Trump
thought he could control him and use him as a threatening pit bull. Mistake. Bolton is greedy
as well as vindictive.
Well, it looks like I'll need to start contributing to NPR again. They are a little too
woke for my tastes, but Pompeo is a liar, and frankly beyond the pale. A perfect
representative of the current administration by the way. Kudos to NPR for standing up to
him.
Much like U.S. foreign policy, it seems that Mike Pompeo is going to ignore the facts and
keep recklessly escalating the conflict. Surely he's aware that
The Washington Post
published the
email correspondence
between Ms. Kelley and press aide. This just makes him look like
a coward.
From the Trump voter perspective, this journalist should feel lucky that she wasn't sent
to Guantanamo Bay. All Trump voters think this way, there is no exception.
'When I walk on White House grounds, God walks on White House grounds.' -- Meet Paula White,
spiritual adviser to President Trump and the latest addition to the White House staff.
" Subscribe to NowThis:
http://go.nowth.is/News_Subscribe
Bolton is pretty dangerous neocon scum... Now he tried to backstab Trump, so Trump gets what
he deserves as only complete idiot or a fully controlled puppet would appoint Bolton to his
Administration.
Breitbart
News , which would include the recently leaked manuscript of former National Security
adviser John Bolton.
The report describes the reviews as a "standard process that allows the NSC to review book
manuscripts, op-eds, or any other material for any classified material to be eliminated before
publication."
The New York Timesreported
Sunday evening that Bolton's draft book manuscript, which had been submitted to the NSC for
prepublication review on Dec. 30, alleged that President Trump told Bolton in August 2019
that he wanted to withhold security assistance to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate
former Vice President Joe Biden, among others.
It was not clear if the Times had seen the Bolton manuscript; its sources were
"multiple people" who "described Mr. Bolton's account of the Ukraine affair."
Bolton's lawyer, Chuck Cooper,
issued a statement in which he said: "It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times
article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted ." He did
not confirm or deny the Times ' reporting on the content of the manuscript. -
Breitbart News
What a coincidence! While Alexander Vindman at the NSC testifies against Trump at the
House impeachment, the other brother (Yevgeny) appears to be in charge of clearing John
Bolton's book for publication.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman famously
testified against President Trump during House impeachment hearings in November, where he
admitted to violating the chain of command when he reported his concerns over a July 25 phone
call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky.
Nunes: Did you know that financial records show a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma,
routed more than $ 3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden?
Vindman, whose job is to handle Ukraine policy: "I'm not aware of this fact." pic.twitter.com/6yFbWkufmH
Breitbart notes that the Vindman brothers have offices
across from each other at the NSC , and that the Wall Street Journal describes
Vindman as "an NSC lawyer handling ethics issues." Alexander Vindman, meanwhile, has said that
his brother was the " lead
ethics official " at the agency.
Meanwhile, looks like people are already distancing themselves from Bolton's claims that
President Trump explicitly linked Ukraine aid with an investigation into the Bidens.
"Today, January 27, 2020, we have a stunning update ==>>
After previously claiming no FBI records could be found related to Seth Rich, emails have
been uncovered. These emails weren't just from anybody. These emails were between FBI
lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two most corrupt individuals involved in the Russia
Collusion Hoax.
In a set of
emails released by Judicial Watch on January 22, 2020, provided by a FOIA request on
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two pages on emails refer to Seth Rich:"
These guys are Ukrainian mob moles, sent here by their Ukie Jewish oligarchs when their
positions of privilege went into decline with the collapse of communism. Because its typical
for three first generation schmucks fresh off the immigrant boat to end up with two as
officers both working in the white house, and the third brother back in Ukie Euro land
controlling a major bank hip deep in all the scandal.
Think any investigative agency will touch it, don't **** with the mossad.
Nov 5, 2019In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel
Jim Hickman said that he "verbally reprimanded " Vindman after he heard some of his derisive
remarks for himself. " Do not let the uniform fool you," Hickman wrote. "He is a political
activist in uniform."
So why isn't Vindman doing contracts in North Alaska or deputy attache in Namibia tonight
until he gets passed over 3 times for promotion and forced to retire unless Durham can find
evidence of his guilt?
Speaking of Vindman, an Obama holdover, White House HR head, has prohibited Vindman's
removal from the NSC. He even gets a $30k raise and is permitted to serve out his term until
June. You can't make this **** up:
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this. And thank you for opening the
comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please point them out to me.
And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump
to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what
his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more
years.
Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery,
he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously
change the course.
So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons
and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his
intentions.
And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing
is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next
global superpower.
It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China
has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.
North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the
world how he treats international law and even allies.
With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are
important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than
substantial progress.
Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to
know can see, that he is neither one.
4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself
as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true
alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?
I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not
perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there,
is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and
economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years
ago.
And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and
unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As
you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.
And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my
own.
One other thing. Coronavirus. He could emerge the Hero of Wuhan, like a modern Flashman, but
there are many forces at play. Or I should say, there is *a* force at play going against his
ability to do that.
A little history. I believe it was the first midterms of Obama's Presidency, the Ebola
scare hit right before the election. Trump, yes Trump, screamed at the top of his lungs and I
believe took out a full page ad in the newspapers that we should close the borders to all
travelers from Africa. On the advise of the CDC, Obama refused to do this. The people,
sensing that Obama was not interested in their welfare, elected a Republican Congress in a
landslide. Trump basically was saying that Obama was soft on his birthplace, Africa.
Well, the shoe is on the other foot now. The force that is now in play, that was
definitely not in play with Ebola, is money. The economic consequences of a serious epidemic,
a bit or maybe a lot more intense than SARS, because that is what they're talking about, will
wreak havoc on the world economy. Just start with China. However severe the disease is, the
Chinese are going completely nuts about it. The second largest economy on earth.
Trump's tweets thus far do not mention coronavirus. Schiff exists, but the coronavirus
doesn't. Eventually, he will have to say something, and it will be very hard for him to say
anything except that health professionals are doing an incredibly good job... without going
into the details of what that might mean. Sort of like saying we have the best military on
earth and brushing off traumatic brain injuries to 34 service men and women as headaches.
Because if he says anything that isn't happy talk, the markets, the rentiers, are not going
to like it. Essentially, he can close the borders to illegal Latin Americans, but he can't
tamper with China.
Viruses are spread by touching something with living virus on it and then touching your
nose. We touch are noses countless times a day. Handwashing is the absolute key. True droplet
spread--someone across the room sneezes and you inhale the droplets--is exceedingly rare.
Significant part is that the legislator for a province where an annual festival is to take
place, that attracts many Chinese tourists, is seeking to ban Chinese participation this
year.
Gutsy move, to forego tourist revenue to protect the locals.
Trump outlived his shelf life. Money quote: "This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a
point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring
the world in 4 more years."
Notable quotes:
"... Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making ..."
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
"... Trump stands no chance if things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote. ..."
"... Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way out. ..."
"... Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I can't vote for either. Both spread chaos. ..."
"... President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC ..."
"... His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 - 15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year. ..."
"... Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and successful. ..."
President Trump will easily be acquitted in the senate trial. This may occur this week and
there will probably be no witnesses called. That will be an additional victory for him and will
add to the effect of his trade deal victories and the general state of the US economy. These
factors should point to a solid victory in November for him and the GOP in Congress.
Ah! Not so fast the cognoscenti may cry out. Not so fast. The Middle East is a graveyard of
dreams:
1. Iraq. Street demonstrations in Iraq against a US alliance are growing more
intense. There may well have been a million people in Muqtada al-Sadr's extravaganza. Shia
fury over the death of Soleimani is quite real. Trump's belief that in a contest of the will he
will prevail over the Iraqi Shia is a delusion, a delusion born of his narcissistic personality
and his unwillingness to listen to people who do not share his delusions. A hostile Iraqi
government and street mobs would make life unbearable for US forces there.
2. Syria. The handful of American troops east and north of the Euphrates "guarding"
Syrian oil from the Syrian government are in a precarious position with the Shia Iraqis at
their backs across the border and a hostile array of SAA, Turks, jihadis and potentially
Russians to their front and on their flanks.
3. Palestine. The "Deal of the Century" is approaching announcement. From what is
known of its contours, the deal will kill any remaining prospects for Palestinian statehood and
will relegate all Palestinians (both Israeli citizens and the merely occupied) to the status of
helots forever . Look it up. In return the deal will offer the helotry substantial bribes in
economic aid money. Trump evidently continues to believe that Palestinians are
untermenschen . He believe they will sell their freedom. The Palestinian Authority has
already rejected this deal. IMO their reaction to the imposition of this regime is likely to be
another intifada.
Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn
Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making . pl
Could it be true? If that is the case, it´s more scary than Elora thought when that of Soleimani
happened....This starts to look as a frenopatic...isn´t it?
With Iran and her allies holding the figurative Trump Card on escalation, will they ramp up
the pressure to topple him? They could end up with a Dem who couldn't afford to "lose" Syria
or Iraq.
I submit to you, Colonel, that the biggest threat to Trump is a Bernie/Tulsi ticket. Bernie
is leading in the Iowa and NH polls, and the recent spat with Warren (in my opinion) leaves
Bernie with no viable choice for VP other than Tulsi.
Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this.
And thank you for opening the comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please
point them out to me.
And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a
point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring
the world in 4 more years.
Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery, he
has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously
change the course.
So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and
ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his
intentions.
And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing
is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next
global superpower.
It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China
has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.
North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the
world how he treats international law and even allies.
With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are
important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than
substantial progress.
Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to
know can see, that he is neither one.
4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself
as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true
alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?
I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not
perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there,
is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and
economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years
ago.
And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and
unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As
you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.
And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my
own.
The economy is actually quite good and he is NOT "a dictator." Dictators are not put on
trial by the legislature. He is extremely ignorant and suffers from a life in which only
money mattered.
Once Bernie wins the nomination, it's going to be escalation time. Trump stands no chance if
things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote.
I'm starting to think that Trumps weakness is believing that everyone and everything has a
monetary price. I think perhaps his dealings with China may reinforce his perception, as,
also, his alleged success in bullying the Europeans over Iran -- with the threat of tariffs on
European car imports. His almost weekly references to Iraqi and Syrian oil, allies "not
paying their way", financial threats to the Iraq Government, all suggest a fixation on
finance that has served him well in business.
The trouble is that one day President Trump is going to discover there is something money
can't buy, to the detriment of America.
Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy
both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are
sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be
contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way
out.
Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with
Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality
clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I
can't vote for either. Both spread chaos.
My subconscious is again acting out. The mini-WWIII with Iran could shut off Middle
Eastern oil at any time. The Fed is back to injecting digital money into the market. China
has quarantined 44 million people. Global trade is fragile. Today there are four cases of
Wuhan Coronavirus in the USA.
If confirmed that the virus is contagious without symptoms and
an infected person transmits the virus to 2 to 3 people and with a 3% mortality rate and a
higher 15% rate for the infirmed, the resupply trip to Safeway this summer could be both
futile and dangerous.
It's an old story. Mr X is elected POTUS; going to do this and that; something happens in the
MENA. That's all anyone remembers.
Maybe time to kiss Israel goodbye, tell SA to sell in whatever currency it wants, and realise that oil producers have to sell
the stuff -- it's no good to them in the ground...
President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC -- and much of the
Department of Commerce & Treasury. His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 -
15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to
Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the
President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year.
Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to
fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his
economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and
successful.
Carthage must be destroyed! I don't know if Trump is going to war with Iran willingly or with
a Neocon gun to his head, but if he's impeached I expect Pence to go on a holy crusade.
On Wednesday, Jan 22 Donald Trump wrote his name in the Guinness records books setting Presidential record in Twits.
According @FactbaseFeed, an account which tracks Trump's Twitter habits, Trump sent 142 tweets and retweets on Wednesday --
eclipsing his previous single-day presidential record of 123.
According to the US diplomat, President Trump has made it very "clear that any attack on Americans or American interests will
be met with a decisive response, which the president demonstrated on January 2".
And American interests are defined very flexibly, sometimes in conflicting tweets.
"... A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America ..."
"... But it was and is true. Indeed, when I visited Afghanistan back when U.S. troop levels were near their highest, "off camera," so to speak, military folks were quite skeptical of the war. So were Afghans, who had little good to say about their Washington-created and -supported government unless they were collecting a paycheck from it. An incoming president could be forgiven for suspecting that his predecessor had poured more troops into the conflict only to put off its failure until after he'd left office. ..."
"... Accounts like that from Rucker and Leonnig are beloved by the Blob. America's role is to dominate the globe, irrespective of cost. Those officials pursuing this objective, no matter how poorly, are lauded. Any politician challenging Washington's global mission is derided. ..."
"... President Trump has done much wrong. However, he deserves credit for challenging a failed foreign policy that's been paid for by so many while benefiting so few. It is "crazy" and "stupid," as he reportedly said. Why should Americans keep dying for causes that their leaders cannot adequately explain, let alone justify? Let us hope that one day Americans elect a president who will act and not just talk. ..."
fter three years of the Trump presidency, the Washington Post is breathlessly
reporting that Donald Trump is a boor who insults everyone, including generals used to respect
and even veneration. He's had the impertinence to ask critical questions of his military
briefers. For shame!
President Trump's limitations have been long evident. The Post 's discussion,
adapted by Carol D. Leonnig and Philip Rucker from their upcoming book, A Very Stable
Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America , adds color, not substance, to this concern.
It seems that in the summer of 2017, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, and others were concerned about the president's international ignorance and
organized a briefing at the Pentagon to enlighten him.
Was that a worthwhile mission? Sure. Everyone in the policy world marvels at the president's
lack of curiosity, absent knowledge, bizarre assumptions, and perverse conclusions. He doesn't
get trade, bizarrely celebrates dictatorship, fixates on Iran, doesn't understand agreements,
acts on impulse, and exudes absolute certainty. Yet he also captures the essence of issues and
shares a set of inchoate beliefs held by millions of Americans, especially those who feel
ignored, insulted, disparaged, and dismissed. Most important, he was elected with a mandate to
move policy away from the bipartisan globalist conventional wisdom.
The latter was evidently the main concern of these briefers. The presentation as described
by the article exuded condescension. That attitude very likely was evident to Trump. The
briefing was intended to inform, but even more so to establish his aides' control over him.
While they bridled at Trump's manners, they were even more opposed to his substantive opinions.
And that made the briefing sound like a carefully choreographed attack on his worldview.
For instance, Mattis used charts with lots of dollar signs "to impress upon [the president]
the value of U.S. investments abroad. [Mattis] sought to explain why U.S. troops were deployed
in so many regions and why America's safety hinged on a complex web of trade deals, alliances,
and bases across the globe." Notably, Mattis "then gave a 20-minute briefing on the power of
the NATO alliance to stabilize Europe and keep the United States safe."
No doubt Secretary Mattis sincerely believed all that. However, it was an argument more
appropriately made in 1950 or 1960. The world has since changed dramatically.
Of course, this is also the position of the Blob, Ben Rhodes' wonderful label for the
Washington foreign policymaking community. What has ever been must ever be, is the Blob's
informal mantra. America's lot in life, no matter how many average folks must die, is to litter
the globe with bases, ships, planes, and troops to fight endless wars, some big, some small, to
make the world safe for democracy, sometimes, and autocracy, otherwise. If America ever stops
fulfilling what seems to be the modern equivalent of Rudyard Kipling's infamous "white man's
burden," order will collapse, authoritarianism will advance, trade will disappear, conflict
will multiply, countries will be conquered, friends will become enemies, allies will defect,
terrorists will strike, liberal values will be discarded, all that is good and wonderful will
disappear, and a new dark age will envelope the earth.
Trump is remarkably ignorant of the facts, but he does possess a commonsensical skepticism
of the utter nonsense that gets promoted as unchallengeable conventional wisdom. As a result,
he understood that this weltanschauung, a word he would never use, was an absolute fantasy. And
he showed it by the questions he asked.
For instance, he challenged the defense guarantee for South Korea. "We should charge them
rent," he blurted out. "We should make them pay for our soldiers." Although treating American
military personnel like mercenaries is the wrong approach, he is right that there is no need to
protect the Republic of Korea. The Korean War ended 67 years ago. The South has twice the
population and, by the latest estimate, 54 times the economy of the North. Why is Seoul still
dependent on America?
If the Blob has its way, the U.S. will pay to defend the ROK forever. Analysts speak of the
need for Americans to stick around even after reunification. It seems there is no circumstance
under which they imagine Washington not garrisoning the peninsula. Why is America, born of
revolution, now acting like an imperial power that must impose its military might
everywhere?
Even more forcefully, it appeared, did Trump express his hostile views of Europe and NATO.
Sure, he appeared to mistakenly believe that there was an alliance budget that European
governments had failed to fund. But World War II ended 70 years ago. The Europeans recovered,
the Soviet Union collapsed, and Eastern Europeans joined NATO. Why is Washington expected to
subsidize a continent with a larger population than, and economy equivalent to, America's, and
far larger than Russia's? Mattis apparently offered the standard bromides, such as "This is
what keeps us safe."
How? Does he imagine that without Washington's European presence, Russia would roll its
tanks and march to the Atlantic Ocean? And from there launch a global pincer movement to invade
North America? How does adding such behemoths as Montenegro keep the U.S. "safe"? What does
initiating a military confrontation with Moscow over Ukraine, historically part of the Russian
Empire and Soviet Union, have to do with keeping Americans "safe"? The argument is
self-evidently not just false but ridiculous.
Justifying endless wars is even tougher. Rucker and Leonnig do not report what the president
said about Syria, which apparently was part of Mattis's brief. However, Trump's skepticism is
evident from his later policy gyrations. Why would any sane Washington policymaker insist that
America intervene militarily in a multi-sided civil war in a country of no significant security
interest to the U.S. on the side of jihadists and affiliates of al-Qaeda? And stick around
illegally as the conflict wound down? To call this policy stupid is too polite.
Even more explosive was the question of Afghanistan, to which the president did speak,
apparently quite dismissively. Unsurprisingly, he asked why the U.S. had not won after 16 years
-- which is longer than the Civil War, World Wars I and II, and the Korean War combined. He
also termed Afghanistan a "loser war." By Rucker's and Leonnig's telling, this did not go over
well: "That phrase hung in the air and disgusted not only the military men and women in uniform
sitting along the back wall behind their principals. They all were sworn to obey their
commander in chief's commands, and here he was calling the way they had been fighting a loser
war."
But it was and is true. Indeed, when I visited Afghanistan back when U.S. troop levels were
near their highest, "off camera," so to speak, military folks were quite skeptical of the war.
So were Afghans, who had little good to say about their Washington-created and -supported
government unless they were collecting a paycheck from it. An incoming president could be
forgiven for suspecting that his predecessor had poured more troops into the conflict only to
put off its failure until after he'd left office.
The fault does not belong to combat personnel, but to political leaders and complicit
generals, who have misled if not lied in presenting a fairy tale perspective on the conflict's
progress and prognosis. And for what? Central Asia is not and never will be a vital issue of
American security. Afghanistan has nothing to do with terrorism other than its having hosting
al-Qaeda two decades ago. Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. In recent years, it's Yemen
that's hosted the most dangerous national affiliate of al-Qaeda. So why are U.S. troops still
in Afghanistan?
Accounts like that from Rucker and Leonnig are beloved by the Blob. America's role is to
dominate the globe, irrespective of cost. Those officials pursuing this objective, no matter
how poorly, are lauded. Any politician challenging Washington's global mission is
derided.
President Trump has done much wrong. However, he deserves credit for challenging a
failed foreign policy that's been paid for by so many while benefiting so few. It is "crazy"
and "stupid," as he reportedly said. Why should Americans keep dying for causes that their
leaders cannot adequately explain, let alone justify? Let us hope that one day Americans elect
a president who will act and not just talk.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former special assistant
to President Ronald Reagan and author of several books, including Foreign Follies:
America's New Global Empire .
Maybe we should put sanctions on Pompeo. He could use the diet. Maybe raiding his pantry
would feed Iraqi for a couple months. He is truly perfect spokesman American empire.
Sadistic, bloated, and corrupt.
The idea that Trump's recent actions in the Middle East were part of some incredibly cunning
plan to avoid war with Iran, strikes me as somewhat implausible, to put it (very)
charitably.
Even Hitler didn't want war. He wanted to achieve his objectives without fighting. When that
didn't work, war was Plan B. Trump probably has very little actual control over foreign policy.
He is surrounded by people who have been plotting and scheming against him from long before he
was elected. He heads a chaotic and dysfunctional administration of billionaires, chancers,
grifters, conmen, superannuated generals, religious nut jobs, swamp creatures, halfwits and
outright criminals, lurching from one crisis and one fiasco to the next. Some of these people
like Bolton were foisted upon him by Adelson and various other backers and wire pullers, but
that is not to absolve Trump of personal responsibility.
Competing agencies which are a law unto themselves have been free to pursue their own turf
wars at the expense of anything remotely resembling a rational and coherent strategy. So have
quite low level bureaucrats, formulating and implementing their own policies with little regard
for the White House. In Syria, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department went their own
way, each supporting competing and mutually antagonistic factions and terrorist groups.
Agreements that were reached with Russia over Syria, for example, were deliberately sabotaged
by Ashton Carter in 24 hours. Likewise, Bolton did everything he could to wreck Trump's
delicate negotiations with N. Korea.
paul ,
Seen in this light, US policy (or the absence of any coherent policy) is more understandable.
What passes for US leadership is the worst in its history, even given a very low bar.
Arrogant, venal, corrupt, delusional, irredeemably ignorant, and ideologically driven. The
only positive thing that can be said is that the alternative (Clinton) would probably have
been even worse, if that is possible.
That may also be the key to understanding the current situation. For all his pandering to
Israel, Trump is more of a self serving unprincipled opportunist than a true Neocon/ Zionist
believer in the mould of Pence, Bolton and Pompeo. For that reason he is not trusted by the
Zionist Power Elite. He is too much of a loose cannon. They will take all his Gives, like
Jerusalem and the JCPOA, but without any gratitude.
It has taken them a century of plotting, scheming and manoeuvring to achieve their
political, financial, and media stranglehold over the US. but America is a wasting asset and
they are under time pressure. It is visibly declining and losing its influence. And the
parasite will find it difficult to find a similar host. Who else is going to give Israel
billions a year in tribute, unlimited free weaponry and diplomatic cover? Russia? Are Chinese
troops "happy to die for Israel" asUS ones are (according to their general)?
paul ,
And they are way behind schedule. Assad was supposed to be dead by now, and Syria another
defenceless failed state, broken up into feuding little cantons, with Israel expanding into
the south of the country. The main event, the war with Iran, should have started lond ago.
That is the reason for the impeachment circus. This is not intended to be resolved one way
or the other. It is intended to drag on indefinitely, for months and years, to distract and
weaken Trump and make it possible to extract what they want. One of the reasons Trump agreed
to the murder of Soleimani and his Iraqi opposite number was to appease some Republican
senators like Graham whose support is essential to survive impeachment. They were the ones
who wanted it, along with Bolton and Netanyahu.
Bush, Obama, and Clinton are despicable. In fact, they're particularly
disgusting, inasmuch, as they were much more "cognizant" than Trump of how their actions would
lead to very specific insidious consequences. In addition, they were more able to cleverly
conceal their malevolent deeds from the public. And that's why Trump is now sitting in the Oval
Office–he won because of public disgust for lying politicians.
However, Trump is "dangerous" because he's a "misinformed idiot," and as such is extremely
malleable. Of course, ignorance is no excuse when the future of humanity is on the line
In any event, Trump is often not aware of the outcome of his actions. And when you're
surrounded and misinformed by warmongering neoconservative nutcases, especially ones who
donated to your campaign chances are you'll do stupid things. And that's what they're counting
on
"... The "movement conservatives" leader was Barry Goldwater who Trump's dad was a big supporter of, and Trump was raised in and among AND represents that faction of elite power. ..."
"... The LIEO or Rules Based Order is based on being closely allied with European elites against Russia to contain the Middle East and Central Asia (Iran and Afghanistan) based on Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard theory. ..."
"... The 1950's triangle of power was superseded by the oligarch's counter revolution that led to supranational trade institutions. Democracies were relegated to a secondary status and run by technocrats for the benefit of oligarchs until Donald Trump. He is a nationalist plutocrat; admittedly a lower level one, a NY casino owner who went bankrupt. Mike Bloomberg represents the other side, a globalist billionaire. Elizabeth Warren is a top level technocrat but no politician. ..."
"... The endless wars are fought to make a profit for the plutocracy and destabilize nations to make foreign corporate exploitation possible. That was why Hunter Biden was in Ukraine. The conflicts are not meant to be won. ..."
"... He makes stupid mistakes. Through the barrage of propaganda, reports of shell shocked troops, destroyed buildings and 11 concussion causalities from Iran's missile attack made it into the news. The military must be pissed. The aura of invincibility is gone. ..."
"... Donald Trump should be removed by the 25th amendment before he mistakenly triggers the Apocalypse. Except the 1% politician VP, Mike Pence, believes that the End of Time is God's Will and necessary for his Ascension. ..."
"... The power triangle theory is less in line with the facts than a simple duality: Wall Street & the MIC, you have to advance interests of both or you're out. ..."
"... Second, the 'meeting in the Tank' sounds like complete b.s. designed to sell books ..."
"... And the 'rules-based international order' rings very false as something that would be said with a straight face by real MIC insiders, which those generals are. ..."
"... Not only sick of wars, his mobster approach to foreign policy and allies is an embarrassment to RINO and Independents. ..."
"... Humanity is in a civilization war about public/private finance being fought by proxies and character actors like Trump. Maybe after this war is over, and if we survive, we can all communicate about the social contract directly instead of through proxy fronts. Do you want to live in a sharing/caring world or a selfish/competitive one?....socialism or barbarism? ..."
That Power Elite theory which was written in the 50s by C.W. Mills is incomplete for today
because in the 60s there was a split among the power elite between the new "movement
conservatives" and the old eastern bank establishment. The conservatives were more focused on
the pacific region and containing China, and the liberal establishment were more focused on
Europe and containing Russia.
The "movement conservatives" leader was Barry Goldwater who Trump's dad was a big supporter
of, and Trump was raised in and among AND represents that faction of elite power. In fact he
is the 1st president from that faction of the elites to hold the oval office, many people
thought Reagan was, but he was brought under the control of George Bush and the liberal
elites after taking office after he was injured by a Bush related person. The different
agendas of the the two factions are out in the open today with one being focused on
anti-Russia and the other being focused on anti-China. It has been like that since the
1960s.
The anti-China conservative faction which Trump represents (and which unleashed the VietNam
War) is screwing up the "rules based order" aka "Liberal International
Economic Order" aka Pax Americana which was set up after WWII at Bretton Woods and then
altered in the 1970s with the creation of the petrodollar and petrodollar recycling into
Treasury Bonds, by destroying the monetary scam they set up to control the world
It needed
the cooperation of the elites of Europe and elsewhere, which Trump and his faction doesn't
care about -- they only care about short term profits on Wall St.
The LIEO or Rules Based Order is based on being closely allied with European elites
against Russia to contain the Middle East and Central Asia (Iran and Afghanistan) based on
Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard theory. China trade is important for them, Russia is
their main enemy. ( War of the Worlds:
The New Class ). Trump and his movement conservative faction is ruining their world order
for their own short term gain on Wall St.
The 1950's triangle of power was superseded by the oligarch's counter revolution that led
to supranational trade institutions. Democracies were relegated to a secondary status and run
by technocrats for the benefit of oligarchs until Donald Trump. He is a nationalist
plutocrat; admittedly a lower level one, a NY casino owner who went bankrupt. Mike Bloomberg
represents the other side, a globalist billionaire. Elizabeth Warren is a top level
technocrat but no politician.
The endless wars are fought to make a profit for the plutocracy and destabilize nations to
make foreign corporate exploitation possible. That was why Hunter Biden was in Ukraine. The
conflicts are not meant to be won.
Donald Trump is way for over his head and getting old. His competent staff are in jail or
fired. Apparently no one told him about the thousands of ballistic missiles that can destroy
the Gulf States' oil facilities at will and make the buildup for the invasion of Iran
impossible. He makes stupid mistakes. Through the barrage of propaganda, reports of shell
shocked troops, destroyed buildings and 11 concussion causalities from Iran's missile attack
made it into the news. The military must be pissed. The aura of invincibility is gone.
Donald Trump should be removed by the 25th amendment before he mistakenly triggers the
Apocalypse. Except the 1% politician VP, Mike Pence, believes that the End of Time is God's
Will and necessary for his Ascension.
The power triangle theory is less in line with the facts than a simple duality: Wall Street
& the MIC, you have to advance interests of both or you're out.
Second, the 'meeting in the Tank' sounds like complete b.s. designed to sell books, with
an obvious sales strategy, as b said, of pleasuring both the pro/anti Trump sides of the
book-buying bourgeoisie.
And the 'rules-based international order' rings very false as
something that would be said with a straight face by real MIC insiders, which those generals
are.
Finally, whether Trump ridiculed the generals or not, that's a sideshow to entertain the
rubes. Trump's always been on side with the big picture Neocon approach essential to the MIC.
Their global dominance or chaos approach is essential to keeping military budgets gigantic
until 'forever'. True that Trump whined about endless wars as a 2016 campaign strategy, but
he was either b.s.-ing or at the time didn't get that they are part of the overall Neocon
approach he backs.
Not a very good analysis by b because this does not explain why 90 % of US corporate media
is hostile to Trump. This does not happen without significant elite support.
That Trump is backed by the military faction is something i have been saying often. But
there are forces within the government faction that dislike him, for example the CIA.
As for the corporate faction, it is not true that free money made them supportive of
Trump. Rather the faction is divided - between the globalist corporate faction, relying on
globalisation, including most tech companies, and US nationalist faction, such as local US
businesses, big oil, shale gas, etc.
Another point - jews have large influence within the US, and 80 % voted against Trump
regardless of his Israeli support. They again voted 80 % Dem in 2018. Having 80 % of US jews
against you means encountering significant resistance.
Demographically speaking, most women, jews, muslims, latinos, asians, afroamericans, lgbt
people, young people, etc. are strongly against him so i think that he will lose. Unless for
some reason they do not vote.
Even if he somehow wins again, this will lead to civil war like situation and extreme
polarisation in the US.
The US military, the various factions within the Deep State, political and corporate
cabals has the attitude of a spoiled 3-year-old: If I can't have it, I'll break it so it is
of little use to others.
Unfortunately, breaking other countries is just fine for the MIC... arms sales all around
and chaos to impede non-military commerce with other major power centers like Russia or
China.
Trump is the product of a dysfunctional family, a "greed is good" trust-fund social circle
and a sociopathic US bully/gun culture.
The fact "bone spurs" Trump weaseled out of the draft will also not play well with the
generals, let alone the grunts who suffer most from endless POTUS idiocy (not limited to
Trump, see Prince Bush/Bandar the 2nd)
All the more proof that most Western "democracies" would be better served with a lottery
to choose their Congressional and POTUS chair-warmers. Joe Sixpack could do a better job. A
200-lb sack of flour would do better than any POTUS since Kennedy.
your: "Trump can't start a war without ruling class backing any more than he can end the
wars if the rulers veto it."
May be, I think is, true in one sense. But Trump is far from the sole agent capable of
starting a war. War, as opposed to simple murder, involve 2 or more parties. Whatever the
intentions, the recent murders by drone in Baghdad hav,e it seems, brought Iran to consider
war exists now...and they have a nifty MAGA policy. On Press TV today they hosted an expert
who called for the execution of several exceptional American leaders...sounds like war to
me.
(Make America Go Away)
The system is so screwy and peopled by such uneducated and delusional people that it's
quite simple that they would do some stupid that that caused a war. Looks like war to me. I
await the horrors.
Decaying empires usually start wars that bring about their rapid ruin. Does it matter how
they do this?
............
The thesis of the triangle of elite factions is fascinating.
Walter recalls that JFK got the reports from Vietnam that said we were winning, while at
the same time Johnson got the true story. And also what happened then with the "correction"
of 1963 (their words) and the immediate change of war policy. Can't help an old guy from
remembering old folly. And noting that history repeats as farce.
The Iran affair is liable to coordinate with NATO. Lavrov spoke to the NATO preparations
today @ TASS...
Some say Trumpie screwed up the schedule, which goes hot in April as a showdown with the
Roooskies. I take that with a grain of salt. But I think the sources I've seen might be
right. They say that if Barbarossa had not been delayed, the nazis woulda won in Russia.
Screwups can be very important.
I can't see any way the US won't use atomic bangers. But maybe...
I agree with wagelaborer in comment #3 and worth a repeat of most of it
"Trump can't start a war without ruling class backing any more than he can end the wars if
the rulers veto it.
US foreign policy is not run by White House puppets.
The US trash-talked Saddam Hussein and starved Iraqis for 14 years, but didn't actually
invade until he started trading oil in Euros.
The US trash-talked Ghaddafi for decades, and even launched missiles which killed his
child in the 80s, but didn't destroy Libya until Ghaddafi decided to sell oil in dinars.
The US has trash-talked and sanctioned Iran for decades, but it was the threat of Iran and
Saudi Arabia making peace that pushed them to assassinate General Soleimani, as he arrived at
the airport on that diplomatic mission.
If Iran and Saudi Arabia make peace, and the Saudis drop the petro-dollar, the US Empire
crumbles.
It doesn't matter at all who is in the White House at the time, the Empire will never allow
that."
Humanity is in a civilization war about public/private finance being fought by proxies and
character actors like Trump. Maybe after this war is over, and if we survive, we can all
communicate about the social contract directly instead of through proxy fronts. Do you want
to live in a sharing/caring world or a selfish/competitive one?....socialism or
barbarism?
A new book titled 'A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America ' offers some
background and perspective on trump's 3 years in the WH and some titillating quotes. An
explanation for why Tillerson called him "a f**king moron" is included.
At one point the authors depict an angry trump lashing out at his advisors for the
trillions spent in Iraq and he demands to know "where's the fu**king oil"? As in, the share
of oil the US should have received for?..attacking Iraq and causing it to descend into
complete chaos I suppose.
As one leading Private Security Company Chief was quoted some years later, it's like the
Wild West. And that was before the rise of ISIS.
But he didn't stop there, no sir, he went on to rant he would never go to war with people
like them. According to the book his choice of words were much more colourful. Said claim
does seem a bit confusing given trump's war record as a Cadet at some school for rich
kids.
But hey, the far right Zionists seem to find him useful.
your: "Trump can't start a war without ruling class backing any more than he can end the
wars if the rulers veto it."
May be, I think is, true in one sense. But Trump is far from the sole agent capable of
starting a war. War, as opposed to simple murder, involve 2 or more parties. Whatever the
intentions, the recent murders by drone in Baghdad hav,e it seems, brought Iran to consider
war exists now...and they have a nifty MAGA policy. On Press TV today they hosted an expert
who called for the execution of several exceptional American leaders...sounds like war to
me.
(Make America Go Away)
The system is so screwy and peopled by such uneducated and delusional people that it's
quite simple that they would do some stupid that that caused a war. Looks like war to me. I
await the horrors.
Decaying empires usually start wars that bring about their rapid ruin. Does it matter how
they do this?
............
The thesis of the triangle of elite factions is fascinating.
Walter recalls that JFK got the reports from Vietnam that said we were winning, while at
the same time Johnson got the true story. And also what happened then with the "correction"
of 1963 (their words) and the immediate change of war policy. Can't help an old guy from
remembering old folly. And noting that history repeats as farce.
The Iran affair is liable to coordinate with NATO..Lavrov spoke to the NATO preparations
today @ TASS...
Some say Trumpie screwed up the schedule, which goes hot in April as a showdown with the
Roooskies. I take that with a grain of salt. But I think the sources I've seen might be
right. They say that if Barbarossa had not been delayed, the nazis woulda won in Russia.
Screwups can be very important.
I can't see any way the US won't use atomic bangers. But maybe...
"There's an odor of mendacity throughout the Afghanistan issue . . . mendacity
and hubris," John F. Sopko said in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
"...What's that smell in this room? Didn't you notice it, Brick? Didn't you notice a powerful
and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room?... There ain't nothin' more powerful than the
odor of mendacity... You can smell it. It smells like death...."
- Big Daddy, in the film Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958), play by Tennessee Williams
However, it is hard to miss Trump's style over the past three years, a consistently
unconventional approach to problems that often seems illogical and rushed at the first
glance, but upon a closer examination, his approaches usually have their own logic and
underlying motivation that, on occasions, could be construed as the result of a broader
strategic and tactical consideration.
I once believed this, but Michael Wolff's books quickly dispelled that fantasy. Here's
what strategy meant during the campaign:
It was during Trump's early intelligence briefings, held soon after he captured the
nomination, that alarm signals first went off among his new campaign staff: he seemed to
lack the ability to take in third-party information. Or maybe he lacked the interest;
whichever, he seemed almost phobic about having formal demands on his attention. He
stonewalled every written page and balked at every explanation. "He's a guy who really
hated school," said Bannon. "And he's not going to start liking it now."
[ ]
One of the ways to establish what Trump wanted and where he stood and what his
underlying policy intentions were -- or at least the intentions that you could convince
him were his -- came to involve an improbably close textual analysis of his largely
off-the-cuff speeches, random remarks, and reflexive tweets during the campaign.
Bannon doggedly went through the Trump oeuvre highlighting possible insights and
policy proscriptions. Part of Bannon's authority in the new White House was as keeper of
the Trump promises, meticulously logged onto the white board in his office. Some of these
promises Trump enthusiastically remembered making, others he had little memory of, but
was happy to accept that he had said it. Bannon acted as disciple and promoted Trump to
guru -- or inscrutable God.
Fire and Fury (Michael Wolff, 2018)
And here's Trump readying himself for the notorious Helsinki summit with Putin back in
2018:
On Friday, July 13, three days before the Helsinki summit, the president and his team
arrived late in the day at Trump Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, after passing on
their way from the airport cow pastures and cheering citizens -- but no protesters.
Mike Pompeo and John Bolton were carrying copious briefing books. This was meant to
be a weekend of preparation interspersed with golf. John Kelly, Sarah Huckabee
Sanders, Bill Shine, and several other aides had come along, too.
Saturday was sunny and in the mid-seventies, with nothing on the agenda except golf.
But by now a few protesters had made their way to Turnberry. "No Trump, No KKK, No Racist
USA," shouted a small group of them during the president's afternoon golf game.
Trump, energized by his NATO and UK meetings -- "we roughed them up" -- was in no mood
to prepare for his Putin meeting. Even his typical, exceedingly casual level of
preparation -- prep masked as gossip -- wasn't happening. Pompeo and Bolton reduced the
boxed briefing binders to a one-pager. The president wouldn't focus on it.
He was fine. And why shouldn't he be? He had walked into his meeting with Kim unable
to pick out North Korea on a map, but it didn't matter. He was in charge, a strong man
making peace.
Don't box me in , he told his advisers. I need to be open , he kept
repeating, as though this was a therapeutic process. Pompeo and Bolton urgently pressed
him about the basic talking points for the summit, now just hours away -- but nothing
doing.
The next morning he played golf, and then it started to rain.
Trump is a bully and a tyrant and he embodies perfectly what America is and stands
for...brute force. For all those who thought he was taking the Empire down; if that were the
case, the EU would reply FU to Trump. Instead they're shaking in their boots.
Trump sent over 14,000 more troops to to the ME only since last May! And is he satisfied
with that? HELL NO. He wants NATO stationed there too!
And, he has the 2nd in command of Iran murdered and brings everyone to the brink, but he
has not an iota of regret and continues thumping his chest and beating the drums of war.
Indeed. Escalation is the easy road to hell. De-escalation and working for peace requires
skill and intellegence.
Very little of either seemingly emanating from the U.S...
U.S. diplomacy (non-existent) only comes from the barrel of a gun or the drone fired
missile...
Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle East, but he has now demonstrated
very clearly that he is a liar
He also promised a wall. Maybe he meant the Israeli wall?
"... Another aspect of Trump's erraticness is making sudden shifts, or what we have called gaslighting. He'll suddenly and radically change his rhetoric, even praise someone he demonized. That if nothing else again is a power play, to try to maintain his position as driving the pacing and content of the negotiations, which again is meant to position his counterparty as in a weaker position, of having to react to his moves, even if that amounts to identifying them as noise. It is a watered-down form of a cult strategy called love bombing (remember that Trump has been described as often being very charming in first meetings, only to cut down the person he met in a matter of days). ..."
"... I would disagree with the "selecting staff" part. I can't really think of any of his appointees to any office while he is president that was a good pick. One worse than the other basically. Maybe in his private dealings he did better, but in public office it's a continuous horror show. Examples like Pence, Haley, "Mad Dog", Bolton, DeVos, his son in law, Pompeo. The list goes on. ..."
"... For me as a foreigner who detests the forever wars and most of the US foreign policy, this is a good thing: the more heavy handed, the more brutal, the more cruel, the more stupid the US policy is, the less is the chance for our euro governments to follow the US in today's war or other policy. ..."
"... They are not inept and incompetent at what they are trying to achieve. The GOP has long sought to privatize government to help the rich get richer and harm anyone who isn't rich by cutting services and making them harder to get. Trumps picks are carrying out that agenda very well. ..."
"... Trump is just a huge crude extension of the usual "exceptional" leaders, much more transparent by not pretending he is any sort of representative of democratic and cooperative values claimed by his predecessors. ..."
"... But what I think is noticeable is that his worst high profile staff picks, while horrible people, are generally those who are under his thumb and so he has control of. ..."
"... He got elected over the dead bodies of just about everyone who counts in the Republican Party. He pretty much did a hostile takeover of the GOP. So his ability to draw on seasoned hands was nil. And on top of that, he is temperamentally not the type to seek the counsel of perceived wise men in and hanging around the party. The people he has kept around are cronies like Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin. ..."
"... The one notably competent person he has attracted and retained is Robert Lightizer, the US Trade Representative ..."
"... oderint, dum metuant ..."
"... Führerprinzip ..."
"... Hitler ran the Third Reich by a system of parallel competition among bureaucratic empire builders of all stripes. Anyone who showed servile loyalty and mouthed his yahoo ideology got all the resources they liked, for any purpose they proposed. But the moment he encountered any form of independence or pushback, he changed horses at once. He left the old group in place, but gave all their resources to a burgeoning new bureaucracy that did things his way. If a State body resisted his will, he had a Party body do it instead. He was continually reaching down 2-3 levels in the org charts, to find some ambitious firecracker willing to suck up to him, and leapfrog to the top. ..."
"... This left behind a complete chaos of rival, duplicated functions, under mainly unfit leaders. And fortunately for the world, how well any of these organizations actually did their jobs was an entirely secondary consideration. Loyalty was all. ..."
"... Hitler sat at the center of all the resource grabbers and played referee. This made everyone dependent on his nod and ensured his continued power. The message was: there are no superiors in the Reich. There is only der Führer, and his favor trumps everything ..."
"... The few over-confident generals he picked, except for Flynn, finally caved when they realized staying was an affront to the honor code they swore to back in OCS or their academy. ..."
"... I don't know how they selected staff in the Reagan years, but lately the POTUS seems to appoint based on who the plutocrats want. As has been noted Bary O took his marching orders from Citigroup if I remember right. I doubt if Trump had even heard of most of the people he appointed prior to becoming president. So at least some of Trump's turnover is due to him firing recommendations from others who didn't turn out how he'd like. That's one reason I didn't get all that upset over the Bolton hiring – I didn't think he'd last a year before Trump canned him. ..."
"... I would say that Trump, not acting in an intelligent way is doing very clever things according to his interests. My opinion is that his actions/negotiations with foreign countries are 100% directed for domestic consumptiom. He does not care at all about international relationships, just his populist "make America great again" and he almost certainly play closest attention to the impact of his actions in US opinion. ..."
"... The maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are exACTLY the desired result. Deliberately and on purpose. ..."
"... It also helps him do some things quietly in the background ..."
Trump and
the Mad Negotiator Approach Posted on January
14, 2020 by Yves Smith Trump's numerous character
flaws, such as his grandiosity, his lack of interest in the truth, his impulsiveness, his
habitual lashing out at critics, have elicited boatloads of disapproving commentary. It's
disturbing to see someone so emotional and undisciplined in charge of anything, let alone the
United States.
Rather than offer yet more armchair analysis, it might be productive to ask a different
question: why hasn't Trump been an abject failure? There are plenty of rich heirs who blow
their inheritance or run the family business into the ground pretty quickly and have to knuckle
down to a much more modest lifestyle.
Trump's lack of discipline has arguably cost him. The noise regularly made about his
business bankruptcies is wildly exaggerated. Most of Trump's
bankruptcies were of casinos , and most of those took place in the nasty 1991-1992
recession. He was one of only two major New York City developers not to have to give meaningful
equity in some of their properties in that downturn. He even managed to keep Mar-a-Lago and
persuaded his lenders to let him keep enough cash to preserve a pretty flashy lifestyle because
he was able to persuade them that preserving his brand name was key to the performance of
Trump-branded assets.
The MarketWatch analysis shows a variety of lenders, all big banks or listed specialized
finance companies like Ladder Capital, that have provided lots of money to Trump over the
years in the forms of short-, medium- and long-term loans and at competitive rates, whether
fixed or variable.
"The Treasury yield that matches the term of the loan is the closest starting benchmark
for Trump-sized commercial real estate loans," said Robert Thesman, a certified public
accountant in Washington state who specializes in real estate tax issues. The 10-year
Treasury swap rate is also used and tracks the bonds closely, according to one expert.
Trump's outstanding loans were granted at rates between 2 points over and under the
matching Treasury-yield benchmark at inception. That's despite the well-documented record of
bankruptcy filings that dot Trump's history of casino investment.
The flip side is that it's not hard to make the case that Trump's self-indulgent style has
cost him in monetary terms. His contemporary Steve Ross of The Related Companies who started
out in real estate as a tax lawyer putting together Section 8 housing deals, didn't have a big
stake like Trump did to start his empire. Ross did have industrialist and philanthropist Max
Fisher as his uncle and role model, but there is no evidence that Fisher staked Ross beyond paying for his education .
Ross has an estimated net worth of $7.6 billion versus Trump's $3.1 billion.
Despite Trump's heat-seeking-missile affinity for the limelight, we only get snippets of how
he has managed his business, like his litigiousness and breaking of labor laws. Yet he's kept
his team together and is pretty underleveraged for a real estate owner.
The area where we have a better view of how Trump operates is via his negotiating, where is
astonishingly transgressive. He goes out of his way to be inconsistent, unpredictable, and will
even trash prior commitments, which is usually toxic, since it telegraphs bad faith. How does
this make any sense?
One way to think of it is that Trump is effectively screening for weak negotiating
counterparties. Think of his approach as analogous to the Nigerian scam letters and the many
variants you get in your inbox. They are so patently fake that one wonders why the fraudsters
bother sending them.
Everyone knows that Nigerian scam e-mails, with their exaggerated stories of moneys tied
up in foreign accounts and collapsed national economies, sound totally absurd, but according
to research from Microsoft, that's on purpose .
As a savvy Internet user you probably think you'd never fall for the obvious trickery, but
that's the point. Savvy users are not the scammers' target audience, [Cormac] Herley notes.
Rather, the creators of these e-mails are targeting people who would believe the sort of
tales these scams involve .:
Our analysis suggests that is an advantage to the attacker, not a disadvantage. Since
his attack has a low density of victims the Nigerian scammer has an over-riding need to
reduce false positives. By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the
scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive
ratio in his favor.
Who would want to get in a business relationship with a guy who makes clear early on that he
might pull the rug out from under you? Most people would steer clear. So Trump's style, even if
he adopted it out of deep-seated emotional needs, has the effect of pre-selecting for weak,
desperate counterparties. It can also pull in people who think they can out-smart Trump and
shysters who identify with him, as well as those who are prepared to deal with the headaches
(for instance, the the business relationship is circumscribed and a decent contract will limit
the downside).
Mind you, it is more common than you think for businesses to seek out needy business
"partners". For instance, back in the day when General Electric was a significant player in
venture capital, it would draw out its investment commitment process. The point was to
ascertain if the entrepreneurs had any other prospects; they wouldn't tolerate GE's leisurely
process if they did. By the time GE was sure it was the only game in town, it would cram down
the principals on price and other terms. There are many variants of this playbook, such as how
Walmart treats suppliers.
Trump has become so habituated to this mode of operating that he often launches into
negotiations determined to establish that he had the dominant position when that is far from
clear, witness the ongoing China trade row. Trump did in theory hold a powerful weapon in his
ability to impose tariffs on China. But they are a blunt weapon, with significant blowback to
the US. Even though China had a glass jaw in terms of damage to its economy (there were signs
of stress, such as companies greatly stretching out when they paid their bills), Trump could
not tolerate much of a stock market downdraft, nor could he play a long-term game.
Another aspect of Trump's erraticness is making sudden shifts, or what we have called
gaslighting. He'll suddenly and radically change his rhetoric, even praise someone he
demonized. That if nothing else again is a power play, to try to maintain his position as
driving the pacing and content of the negotiations, which again is meant to position his
counterparty as in a weaker position, of having to react to his moves, even if that amounts to
identifying them as noise. It is a watered-down form of a cult strategy called
love bombing (remember that Trump has been described as often being very charming in first
meetings, only to cut down the person he met in a matter of days).
Voters have seen another face of Trump's imperative to find or create weakness: that of his
uncanny ability to hit opponents' weak spots in ways that get them off balance, such as the way
he was able to rope a dope Warren over her Cherokee ancestry claims.
The foregoing isn't to suggest that Trump's approach is optimal. Far from it. But it does
"work" in the sense of achieving certain results that are important to Trump, of having him
appear to be in charge of the action, getting his business counterparts on the back foot. That
means Trump is implicitly seeing these encounters primarily in win-lose terms, rather than
win-win. No wonder he has little appetite for international organizations. You have to give in
order to get.
I think this is pretty astute, thanks Yves. One reason I think Trump has been so
successful for his limited range of skills is precisely that 'smart' people underestimate him
so much. He knows one thing well – how power works. Sometimes that's enough. I've known
quite a few intellectually limited people who have built very successful careers based on a
very simple set of principles (e.g. 'never disagree with anyone more senior than me').
Anecdotally, I've often had the conversation with people about 'taking Trump seriously',
as in, trying to assess what he really wants and how he has been so successful. In my
experience, the 'smarter' and more educated the person I'm talking to is, the less willing
they are to have that conversation. The random guy in the bar will be happy to talk and have
insights. The high paid professional will just mutter about stupid people and racism.
I would also add one more reason for his success – he does appear to be quite good
at selecting staff, and knowing who to delegate to.
There is another figure from recent history who displayed similar astuteness about power
while manifesting generally low intelligence: Chile's Pinochet. He had near failing grades in
school but knew how to consolidate power, dominate the other members of the junta, and weed
out the slightest hint of dissidence within the army.
To the average viewer, Trump's branding extends to the negative brands that he assigns to
opponents. Witness Lyin' Ted , Pocahontas and similar sticky names that
make their way into coverage. He induces free coverage from Fake News as if they
can't resist gawking at a car wreck, even when one of the vehicles is their own. Manipulation
has worked quite a lot on people with different world views, especially when they don't
conceive of any different approaches.
Scott Adams touted that as one of Trump's hidden persuasionological weapons . . . that
ability to craft a fine head-shot nickname for every opponent.
If Sanders were to be nominated, I suppose Trump would keep saying Crazy Bernie. Sanders
will just have to respond in his own true-to-himself way. Maybe he could risk saying
something like . . .
" so Trashy Trump is Trashy. This isn't new."
If certain key bunches of voters still have
fond memories for Crazy Eddie, perhaps Sanders could have some operatives subtly remind
people of that.
Some images of Crazy Eddie, for those who wish to stumble up Nostalgia Alley . . .
I would disagree with the "selecting staff" part. I can't really think of any of his
appointees to any office while he is president that was a good pick. One worse than the other
basically. Maybe in his private dealings he did better, but in public office it's a continuous horror
show.
Examples like Pence, Haley, "Mad Dog", Bolton, DeVos, his son in law, Pompeo. The list goes
on.
Another indication how bad his delegation skills are is how short his picks stay at their
job before they are fired again. Is there any POTUS which had higher staff turnover?
Its a horror show because you don't agree with their values. After the last few
Presidents, too much movement to the right would catastrophic, so there isn't much to do. His
farm bill is a disaster. The new NAFTA is window dressing. He slashed taxes. He's found a way
to make our brutal immigration system even more nefarious. His staff seems to be working out
despite it not having many members of the Bush crime family.
Even if these people were as beloved by the press as John McCain, they would still be
monsters.
It's not their values that make them a horror show, it's their plain inaptitude and
incompetency. E.g. someone like that Exxon CEO is at least somewhat capable, which is why I
didn't mention him. Though he was quite ineffective as long as he lasted and probably quite
corrupt. Pompeo in the same office on the other hand is simply a moron elevated way beyond
his station. Words fail and the Peter principle cannot explain.
The US can paper over this due to their heavy handed application of power for now, but
every day he stays in office, friends are abhorred while trying not to show it, and foes
rejoice at the utter stupidity of the US how it helps their schemes.
For me as a foreigner who detests the forever wars and most of the US foreign policy, this
is a good thing: the more heavy handed, the more brutal, the more cruel, the more stupid the
US policy is, the less is the chance for our euro governments to follow the US in today's war
or other policy. So while I am sort of happy about the outcome, I don't see the current
monsters at the helm worse than the monsters 4 years ago under Obama. In fact I detested them
much more since they had the power to drag my governments into their evil schemes.
Evil and clearly despicable is always better than evil and sort of charismatic.
For me as a foreigner who detests the forever wars and most of the US foreign policy,
this is a good thing: the more heavy handed, the more brutal, the more cruel, the more stupid
the US policy is, the less is the chance for our euro governments to follow the US in today's
war or other policy.
Indeed, if you look at the trendline from the '80's to now, trump is, in some ways, the
less effective evil.
They are not inept and incompetent at what they are trying to achieve. The GOP has long
sought to privatize government to help the rich get richer and harm anyone who isn't rich by
cutting services and making them harder to get. Trumps picks are carrying out that agenda
very well.
I feel exactly the same. Trump is just a huge crude extension of the usual "exceptional"
leaders, much more transparent by not pretending he is any sort of representative of
democratic and cooperative values claimed by his predecessors.
But what I think is noticeable is that his worst high profile staff picks, while horrible
people, are generally those who are under his thumb and so he has control of. But in the
behind the scenes activities, they've been very effective – as an obvious example,
witness how he's put so many conservative Republicans into the judiciary, in contrast with Obamas haplessness.
That is not a Trump thing, getting more judges is a 100% rep party thing and only rep
party thing. Sure, he is the one putting his rubber stamp on it, but the picking and
everything else is a party thing. They stopped the placement for years under Obama before
Trump was ever thought about, and now are filling it as fast as they can. Aren't they having
complicit democrats helping them or how can they get their picks beyond congress? Or am I
getting something wrong and Obama could have picked his judges but didn't?
The people he chooses to run his administration however are all horrible. Not just
horrible people but horrible picks as in incompetent buffoons without a clue. Can you show a
evil, horrible or not but actually competent pick of his in his administration?
The only one I can think of is maybe the new FAA chief Dickson. Who is a crisis manager,
after the FAA is in its worst crisis ever right now. So right now someone competent must have
this post. All the others seem to be chickenhawk blowhards with the IQ of a fruitfly but the
bluster of a texan.
Is she effective? What has she done to make her a spy mastermind?
She is obviously a torturer, but is that a qualification in any way useful to be a
intelligence agency boss?
I have the suspicion Haspel was elevated to their office by threatening "I know where all
the bodies are buried (literally) and if you don't make me boss, I will tell". Blackmail can
helping a career lots if successful.
The outcomes of incompetence and malicious intent are sometimes indistinguishable from one
another. With the people Trump has surrounded himself with, horrible, nasty outcomes are par
for the course because these guys are both incompetent and chock full of malicious intent.
Instead of draining the swamp, he's gone and filled it with psychotic sociopaths.
Some time ago I heard Mulvaney answer the criticism about the Trump budget of the day
cutting so much money from EPA that EPA would have to fire half of its relevant scientists.
He replied that " this is how we drain the swamp".
Citing "corruption" was misdirection. Trump let his supporters believe that the corruption
was The Swamp. What the Trump Group ACTually means by "The Swamp" is all the career
scientists and researchers and etc. who take seriously the analyzing and restraining of Upper
Class Looter misbehavior.
I limited the post to his negotiating approach. One would think someone so erratic would
have trouble attracting people. However, Wall Street and a lot of private businesses are full
of high maintenance prima donnas at the top. Some of those operations live with a lot of
churn in the senior ranks. For others, one way to get them to stay is what amounts to a
combat pay premium, they get paid more than they would in other jobs to put up with a
difficult boss. I have no idea how much turnover there is in the Trump Organization or how
good his key lieutenants are so I can't opine either way on that part.
Regarding his time as POTUS, Trump has a lot of things working against him on top of his
difficult personality and his inability to pay civil servants a hardship premium:
1. He got elected over the dead bodies of just about everyone who counts in the Republican
Party. He pretty much did a hostile takeover of the GOP. So his ability to draw on seasoned
hands was nil. And on top of that, he is temperamentally not the type to seek the counsel of
perceived wise men in and hanging around the party. The people he has kept around are cronies
like Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin.
The one notably competent person he has attracted and retained is Robert Lightizer, the US
Trade Representative
2. Another thing that undermines Trump's effectiveness in running a big bureaucracy is his
hatred for its structure. He likes very lean organizations with few layers. He can't impose
that on his administration. It's trying to put a round peg in a square hole.
I have no idea how much turnover there is in the Trump Organization or how good his key
lieutenants are so I can't opine either way on that part.
Is it just me or does nobody know? Does it seem to anyone else like there has been
virtually no investigation of his organization or how it was run?
Maybe it's buried in the endless screeds against Trump, but any investigations of his
organizations always seem colored by his presidency. I'd love to see one that's strictly
historical.
I am simply saying that I have not bothered investigating that issue. There was a NY Times
Magazine piece on the Trump Organization before his election. That was where I recall the bit
about him hating having a lot of people around him, he regards them as leeches. That piece
probably had some info on how long his top people had worked for him.
Congratulations Yves, on another fine piece, one of your best. I might recommend you
append this comment to it as an update, or else pen a sequel.
While Trump has more in common stylistically with a Borgia prince out of Machiavelli, or a
Roman Emperor ( oderint, dum metuant ) than with a Hitler or a Stalin, your note
still puts me in mind of an insightful comment I pulled off a history board a while ago,
regarding the reductionist essence of Führerprinzip , mass movement or no mass
movement. It's mostly out of Shirer:
Hitler ran the Third Reich by a system of parallel competition among bureaucratic
empire builders of all stripes. Anyone who showed servile loyalty and mouthed his yahoo
ideology got all the resources they liked, for any purpose they proposed. But the moment he
encountered any form of independence or pushback, he changed horses at once. He left the old
group in place, but gave all their resources to a burgeoning new bureaucracy that did things
his way. If a State body resisted his will, he had a Party body do it instead. He was
continually reaching down 2-3 levels in the org charts, to find some ambitious firecracker
willing to suck up to him, and leapfrog to the top.
This left behind a complete chaos of rival, duplicated functions, under mainly unfit
leaders. And fortunately for the world, how well any of these organizations actually did
their jobs was an entirely secondary consideration. Loyalty was all.
Hitler sat at the center of all the resource grabbers and played referee. This made
everyone dependent on his nod and ensured his continued power. The message was: there are no
superiors in the Reich. There is only der Führer, and his favor trumps everything
.
As you note, some of these tools (fortunately) aren't available to Cheeto 45 .
I hope this particular invocation of Godwin's avenger is trenchant, and not OT. Although
Godwin himself blessed the #Trump=Hitler comparison some time ago, thereby shark-jumping his
own meme.
It might be as simple as birds of a feather (blackbirds of course) flocking together.
Trump seems to have radar for corrupt cronies as we have seen his swamp draining into the
federal prison system. The few over-confident generals he picked, except for Flynn, finally
caved when they realized staying was an affront to the honor code they swore to back in OCS
or their academy.
I don't know how they selected staff in the Reagan years, but lately the POTUS seems to
appoint based on who the plutocrats want. As has been noted Bary O took his marching orders
from Citigroup if I remember right. I doubt if Trump had even heard of most of the people he
appointed prior to becoming president. So at least some of Trump's turnover is due to him
firing recommendations from others who didn't turn out how he'd like. That's one reason I
didn't get all that upset over the Bolton hiring – I didn't think he'd last a year
before Trump canned him.
My recollection of the Reagan years was that he had a lot of staff who left to "spend more
time with their families"; in other words they got caught being crooked and we're told to go
lest they besmirch the sterling reputation of St. Ronnie.
He early-on adopted the concept of "dismantle the Administrative State". Some of his
appointees are designed to do that from within. He appoints termites to the Department of
Lumber Integrity because he wants to leave the lumber all destroyed after he leaves the White
House.
His farm bill is only a disaster to those who support Good Farm Bill Governance. His
mission is to destroy as much of the knowledge and programs within the USDA as possible. So
his farm bill is designed to achieve the destruction he wants to achieve. If it works, it was
a good farm bill from his viewpoint. For example.
I would say that Trump, not acting in an intelligent way is doing very clever things
according to his interests. My opinion is that his actions/negotiations with foreign
countries are 100% directed for domestic consumptiom. He does not care at all about
international relationships, just his populist "make America great again" and he almost
certainly play closest attention to the impact of his actions in US opinion.
He calculates
the risks and takes measures that show he is a strong man defending US interests (in a very symplistic and populist way) no matter if someone or many are offended, abused or even killed
as we have recently seen. Then if it is appreciated that a limit has been reached, and the
limit is not set by international reactions but perceived domestic reactions, he may do a
setback showing how sensibly magnanimous can a strongman like him be. In the domestic front,
IMO, he does not give a damn on centrists of all kinds. Particularly, smart centrists are
strictly following Trumps playbook focusing on actions that by no means debilitate his
positioning as strongman in foreign issues and divert attention from the real things that
would worry Trump. The impeachment is exactly that. Trump must be 100% confident that he
would win any contest with any "smart" centrist. Of course he also loves all the noises he
generates with, for instance, the Soleimani killing or Huawei banning that distract from his
giveaways to the oligarchs and further debilitation of remaining welfare programs and
environmental programs. This measures don't pass totally unnoticed but Hate Inc .
and public opinions/debates are not paying the attention his domestic measures deserve.
Trump's populism feeds on oligarch support and despair and his policies are designed to keep
and increase both. Polls on Democrats distract from the most important polls on public
opinion about Trum "surprise" actions.
Democrats have long been (what, 50 plus yrs. – Phil Ochs – Love Me I'm A
Liberal) exuding false pride of not appearing to be or sounding insane. Their place, being
the concern troll of the duopoly. All are mad. If the Obama years didn't prove it, the Dems
during Bush Cheney certainly did.
Yes, 50 years. Nixon played mad to get his Vietnam politics through, Reagan was
certifiable
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will
outlaw Russia forever." "We begin bombing in five minutes." live on air.
Etc.
I suspect only half of the post was posted? The last para seems to get cut in mid
sentence.
I'd add one more thing (which may be in the second half, assuming there's one). Trump's
massively insane demands are a good anchoring strategy. Even semi-rational player will not
make out-of-this-earth demands – they would be seen as either undermining their
rationality, or clearly meant to only anchor so less effective (but surprisingly, even when
we know it's only an anchor it apparently works, at least a bit). With irrational Trump, one
just doesn't know.
I think Trump understands that one of the basic tactics of negotiation (though forgotten
by the Left(tm)) is to set out a maximalist position before the negotiation starts, so that
you have room to make compromises later. Sometimes this works better than others – I
don't know how far you can do it with the Chinese, for example. But then Trump may have
inadvertently played, in that case, into the tradition of scripted public utterances combined
with behind-the-scenes real negotiation that tends to characterize bargaining in Asia. But in
domestic politics, there's no doubt that publicly announcing extreme negotiating positions is
a winning tactic. You force the media and other political actors to comment and make
counter-proposals, thus dragging the argument more in your direction from the very start.
Trump remembers something that his opponents have willfully forgotten: compromise is
something you finish with not something you start from . In itself, any
given compromise has no particular virtue or value.
There is actually two parts to a negotiation I should mention. There is negotiating a
deal. And then there is carrying it out. Not only Trump but the US has shown itself incapable
of upholding deals but they will break them when they see an advantage or an opportunity.
Worse, one part of the government may be fighting another part of the government and will
sabotage that deal in sometimes spectacular fashion.
So what is the point of having all these weird and wonderful negotiating strategies if any
partners that you have on the international stage have learned that Trump's word is merely a
negotiating tactic? And this includes after a deal is signed when he applies some more
pressure to change something in an agreement that he just signed off on? If you can't keep a
deal, then ultimately negotiating a deal is useless.
The incapability of the US to keep their treaties has been a founding principle of the
country. Ask any Indian.
Putin or the russian foreign ministry called the US treaty incapable a few years before
Trump, and they were not wrong. Trump didn't help being erratic as he is, but he didn't
cancel any treaty on his own: JCPOA, INF, etc. He had pretty broad support for all of these.
Only maybe NAFTA was his own idea.
I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a
pattern the Russians have used to depict the US: "not agreement capable". That's what I meant
by he selects for weak partners. His negotiating style signals that he is a bad faith actor.
Who would put up with that unless you had to, or you could somehow build that into your
price?
I have no idea who your mythical Russians are. I know two people who did business in
Russia before things got stupid and they never had problems with getting paid. Did you also
miss that "Russians" have bought so much real estate in London that they mainly don't live in
that you could drop a neutron bomb in the better parts of Chelsea and South Kensington and
not kill anyone? Pray tell, how could they acquire high end property if they are such
cheats?
"It is politically important: Russia has paid off the USSR's debt to a country that no
longer exists," said Mr Yuri Yudenkov, a professor at the Russian University of Economics and
Public Administration. "This is very important in terms of reputation: the ability to repay
on time, the responsibility," he told AFP.
It would have been very easy for Russia to say it cannot be held responsible for USSR's
debts, especially in this case where debt is to a non-existent entity.
In Syria, the Department of Defense was supporting one group of pet jihadis. The CIA was
supporting a different group of pet jihadis.
At times the two groups of pet jihadis were actively fighting eachother. I am not sure how
the DoD and CIA felt about their respective pet jihadis fighting eachother. However they
felt, they kept right on arming and supporting their respective groups of pet jihadis to keep
fighting eachother.
He owes the fact he's President not to any skill he has, but to Democrats being so bad.
Many non establishment types could have beaten Hillary.
And Trump owes the fact that he's not DOA in 2020 re-election again because Democrats are
so bad. There are a handful of extremely popular social programs Democrats could champion
that would win over millions of voters and doom Trump's re-election. But instead, they double
down on issues that energize Trump's base, are not off-limits to there donors while ignoring
what the broad non corporate/rich majority support. For example impeaching him for being the
first recent President not to start a major new war for profit and killing millions and then
saying it's really because something he did in Ukraine that 95% of Americans couldn't care
less about and won't even bother to understand even if they could.
That leaves the fact he is rather rich and must have done something to become that. I
don't know enough about him to evaluate that. But I would never what to know him or have a
friend that acts like him. I've avoided people like that in my life.
Did you read the post as positive? Please read again. Saying that Trump's strategy works
only to the extent that he winds up selecting for weak partners is not praise. First, it is
clinical, and second, it says his strategy has considerable costs.
Understanding how it works is the first step in dealing with (or countering) it.
Someone above mentions Pinochet as being similar. I can't, just now, think of anyone* from
history working the way he does. Can anyone name some?
*Except Shakespeare's Hamlet, or some Kung Fu masters, like Jackie Chan in his 1978
"Drunken Master," or earlier, the not as well-known 1966 film, Come Drink With Me, which was
produced by the legendary Run Run Shaw (who lived to be 107, or maybe it was his brother),
starring Cheng Pei Pei. The master becomes the master when, or only when, drunk. It reminds
of the saying, 'method to the madness.'
And often what we perceive to be chaotic – in weather, nature, space or human
affairs – is only so because we don't truly comprehend it. This is not to say it can
not be in fact chaotic.
I find it interesting that the primary foreign entity who has played Trump like a violin
is Kim in North Korea. He has gotten everything he wanted,except sanctions relief over the
past couple of years.
However, Trump's style of negotiating with Iran has made it clear to Kim that North Korea
would be idiots to give up their nuclear weapons and missiles. Meanwhile, Iran has watched
Trump's attitude towards Kim since Kim blew up his first bomb and Trump is forcing them to
develop nuclear weapons to be able to negotiate with Trump and the West.
But other than the minor matter of US 8th Army (cadre) sitting in the line of fire, the
bulk of any risks posed by Li'l Kim are borne by South Korea, Japan and China. So for Trump,
it's still down the list a ways, until the Norks can nuke tip a missile and hit Honolulu. So
what coup has Kim achieved at Trump's expense, again?
Today's Democrats want to destroy those social programs you cite. They have wanted to
destroy those social programs ever since President Clinton wanted to conspire with "Prime
Minister" Gingrich to privatize Social Security. Luckily Monica Lewinsky saved us from that
fate.
A nominee Sanders would run on keeping Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in existence.
And he would mean it. A nominee Biden might pretend to say it. But he would conspire with the
Republicans to destroy them all.
The ClintoBama Pelosicrats have no standing on which to pretend to support some very
popular social programs and hope to be believed any longer. Maybe that is why they feel there
is no point in even pretending any more.
Thanks for the shrewd analysis. The problem is that Trump appears to be morphing from the
mad negotiator into someone who really is mad. I think he knows he screwed up with Soleimani
and there's no taking it back, only doubling down. You can't talk your way out of some
mistakes. Trump is shrewd, but not very smart and like most bullies he's also weak. He gets
by being such an obvious bluffer and blowhard but when you start assassinating people and
expect to be praised for it it's no longer a game.
If I were Iran I'd think really hard about scheduling something embarrassing to happen
just before the election. Jimmy Carter was seriously damaged by hostages, why not Trump?
I'd say the solution is to give Trump the heave ho this November and not play his game of
me me me. Indeed the Iranians seem to be biding their time to see what happens.
Trump was always only tolerable as long as he spent his time shooting off his mouth rather
than playing the imperial chess master. This reality show has gone on long enough.
Bearing in mind the fact that the DemParty would prefer a Trump re-election over a Sanders
election, I don't think anyone will be giving Trump any heave ho. The only potential nominee
to even have a chance to defeat Trump would be Sanders. And if Sanders doesn't win on ballot
number one, Sanders will not be permitted the nomination by an evil Trumpogenic DemParty
elite.
Even if Sanders wins the nomination, the evil Trumpogenic Demparty leadership and the
millions of Jonestown Clintobamas in the field will conspire against Sanders every way they
feel they can get away with. The Clintobamas would prefer Trump Term Two over Sanders Term
One. They know it, and the rest of us need to admit it.
If Sanders is nominated, he will begin the election campaign with a permanent deficit of
10-30 million Clintobama voters who will Never! Ever! vote for Sanders. Sanders will have to
attract enough New Voters to drown out and wash away the 10-30 million Never Bernie
clintobamas.
Not sure he "screwed up" with Suleimani. He now has something to point to when Adelson and
the Israel Firsters ring up. He has red meat for his base ("look what a tough guy I am"). He
can tell the Saudis they now owe him one. He added slightly to the fund of hatred for America
in the hearts of Sunnis but that fund is already pretty full. If they respond with a terror
attack Trump wins because people will rally around the national leader and partisan
differences will be put aside. Notice how fast de-escalation happened, certainly feels alot
like pre-orchestrated kayfabe.
Mind you, there's no reason to think that this negotiation approach wasn't an adaptation
to Trump's emotional volatility, as in finding a way to make what should have been a weakness
a plus. And that he's less able to make that adaptation work well as he's over his head, has
less control than as a private businessman, and generally under way more pressure.
If someone doesn't care who/what they harm or destroy; or if the harm or destruction is
the actual goal, it gives them freedom and power not available to someone with even a
crumb-dropping neoliberal sense (or façade) of obligation toward anyone else or to
anything constructive.
With Democrats being unwilling to scrutinize, it's not clear how much Trump and family are
winning as far as personal fortune. In his public capacity he has little to show for his
winnings that isn't some form of dismantling, destruction, or harm with no constructive
replacement and no material benefits outside the donor class.
Trying to see things from Trump's perspective, while I don't know how his personal fortune
is faring, his lifestyle doesn't seem to have suffered too much of a downturn. He still
spends much of his time playing golf and hanging out at Mar-a-Lago. In addition, his name is
known around the entire world, to a far greater extent than when he was a mere real estate
crook or reality TV phenomenon. Which may be of greater importance to him than the precise
extent of his wealth, let alone the fate of his country or the planet.
Nice analysis, Yves. A welcome break from the typical centrist hand wringing "What norms
has he broken this week?"
Next question: Given that our system allows for bloviating bullies to succeed, is that the
kind of system we want to live under?
I recall reading that Trump's empire would have collapsed during the casino fiasco were it
not for lending from his father when credit was not available elsewhere. NYT investigative
reporters have turned up evidence of massive financial support from Trump father to son to
the tune of hundreds of millions throughout the son's career. So much for the great
businessman argument.
Trump is nothing more or less than a reflection of the mind set of the US people.The left
wing resorts to the same tactics that Trump uses to gain their ends. Rational thought and
reasonable discussion seems to be absent. Everyone is looking for a cause for the country's
failing infrastructure, declining life expectancy, and loss of opportunity for their children
to have a better life than they were able to achieve They each blame the other side. But
there are more than two sides to most folks experience. If ever the USA citizens abolish or
just gets fed up with the two party system maybe things will change. In reality most people
know there is little difference between the two parties so why even vote?
While it might work in domestic politics, this mad man negotiating tactic erodes trust in
international affairs and it will take decades for the US to recover from the harm done by
Trump's school yard bully approach. Even the docile Europeans are beginning to tire of this
and once they get their balls stitched back on after being castrated for so long, America
will have its work cut out crossing the chasm from unreliable and untrustworthy partner to
being seen as dependable and worthy of entering into agreements with.
This analysis of Trump reminded me of a story I heard from the founders of a small rural
radio station. Both had been in broadcasting for years at a large station in a major market,
one as a program director and the other in sales. They competed for a broadcasting license
that became available and they won. With the license in-hand they needed to obtain
investments to get the station on-air within a year or they would lose the license. Even with
their combined savings and as much money as they could obtain from other members of their
families and from friends -- they were short what they needed by several hundred thousand
dollars. Their collateral was tapped out and banks wouldn't loan on the broadcast license
alone without further backing. They had to find private investors. They located and presented
to several but their project could find no backers. In many cases prospects told them their
project was too small -- needed too little money -- to be of interest. As the deadline for
going on-air loomed they were put in touch with a wealthy local farmer.
After a long evening presenting their business case to this farmer in ever greater detail,
he sat back and told them he would give them the money they needed to get their station
on-air -- but he wanted a larger interest in the business than what they offered him. He
wanted a 51% interest -- a controlling interest -- or he would not give them the money, and
they both had to agree to work for the new radio station for a year after it went on-air. The
two holders of the soon to be lost broadcast license looked at each other and told the farmer
he could keep his money and left. The next day the farmer called on the phone and gave them
the names and contact information for a few investors, any one of whom should be able and
interested in investing the amounts they needed on their terms. He also told them that had
they accepted his offer he would have driven them out of the new station before the end of
the year it went on-air. He said he wanted to see whether they were 'serious' before putting
them in touch with serious investors.
Sorry, assassination doesn't fit into this scenario. That is a bridge too far. Trump has
lost his effectiveness by boasting about this. It isn't just unpredictability. It is
dangerous unpredictability.
I never once said that Trump was studied in how he operates, in fact, I repeatedly pointed
out that he's highly emotional and undisciplined. I'm simply describing some
implications.
If our corrupt Congress had not ceded their "co-equal" branch of gov't authority over the
last 40 years thereby gradually creating the Imperial Presidency that we have now, we might
comfortably mitigate much of the mad king antics.
Didn't the Founding Fathers try desperately to escape the terrible wars of Europe brought
on by the whims and grievances of inbred kings, generation after generation? Now on a whim
w/out so much as a peep to Congress, presidential murder is committed and the
CongressCritters bleat fruitlessly for crumbs of info about it.
I see no signs of this top-heavy imperialism diminishing. Every decision will vanish into
a black hole marked "classified."
I am profoundly discouraged at 68 who at 18 years old became a conscientious objector,
that the same undeclared BS wars and BS lies are used to justify continuous conflct almost
nonstop these last 50 years as if engaging in such violence can ever be sucessful in
achieving peaceful ends? Unless the maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are the actual
desired result.
Trump's negotiating style is chaos-inducing deliberately, then eventually a "Big Daddy"
Trump can fix the mess, spin the mess and those of us still in the thrall of big-daddyism can
feel assuaged. It's the relief of the famiy abuser who after the emotional violence
establishes a temporary calm and family members briefly experience respite, yet remain wary
and afraid.
In some ways Trump has a very Japanese style; everything is about saving face even if you
are saying complete nonsense. You have to divine what his actual agenda is. However his
approach to negotiation actually works in the business world, it is a disaster as
diplomacy.
In trying to make sense of his foreign policy, though, there are hidden factors; some how
deep state interests are able to maneuver presidents into following the same policies. What
is happening behind the scenes? This manipulation may be contaminating his negotiations.
I saw an interview with someone (can't remember who) who had a great analogy for the
relationship between Trump and the press: think of the press as a herd of puppies and Trump
is the guy with the tennis ball. He tosses outrageous things out there, they all chase it.
One brings it back, he tosses it again.
Why would he do this? My own take is that he invites chaos – he has a fluid style,
changing his mind often, dumping people and the like which thrives in a chaotic environment.
He likes to shake things up and look for openings.
It also helps him do some things quietly in the background, along with key allies. While
everyone was foaming at the mouth over Russian collusion, he and Mitch McConnell were busy
getting appellate judges confirmed.
I think it is a mistake to underestimate him – he is an unusual person, but far from
stupid.
There is a silver lining to that. If another term of Trump inspires the Europeans to
abrogate NATO and put an end to that alliance and create their own NEATO ( North East
Atlantic Treaty Organization) withOUT America and withOUT Canada and maybe withOUT some of
those no-great-bargain East European countries; then NEATO Europe could reach its own
Separate Peace with Russia and lower that tension point.
And America could bring its hundred thousand hostages ( "soldiers") back home from
not-NATO-anymore Europe.
Kim Jong Un uses similar tactics, strategy, perhaps even style. Clinically and
intellectually, it's interesting to watch their interaction. Emotionally, given their
weaponry, it's terrifying.
Great post! The part about selecting for desperate business partners is very insightful,
it makes his cozying up to dictators and pariah states much more understandable. He probably
thinks/feels that these leaders are so desperate for approval from a country like the US
that, when he needs something from them, he will have more leverage and be able to impose
what he wants.
"... This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless policy. ..."
This crisis was sparked by Donald Trump. Trump withdrew from the
deal that had stopped Iran's nuclear weapons program, leading Iran to restart its nuclear
program. Trump ramped up economic pressure and sent more US troops to the region, and tensions
grew. Then the US killed
Gen Qassem Suleimani , signaling a significant escalation, to which Iran responded with an
attack on Iraqi bases where US and Iraqi troops are stationed.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was when Trump
took office
It is up to Congress and the American people to force Trump to adopt a more pragmatic path.
For too long Congress has ceded to the executive branch its authority to determine when America
goes to war, and the current crisis with Iran is exactly the kind of moment that requires
intense coordination between the legislative and executive branches. The president cannot start
a war without congressional authorization, and with the erratic Trump in office, Congress must
make that clear by cutting off the use of funds for war with Iran.
This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America
fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute
tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless
policy. America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was
when Trump took office – even worse off than we were on 1 January 2020. Today, Iran is
advancing its nuclear program, America has suspended its anti-Isis campaign, Iraq's parliament
has voted to evict US troops from the country, and we are in a dangerous military standoff with
Iran.
Digging out of this hole will be difficult and this administration is not capable of it.
Over the long run, future administrations will need to reorient America's goals and policies.
America needs to re-enter the nuclear deal and begin negotiations to strengthen it; work with
partners like Iraq – without a large US troop presence – in countering potential
threats like a resurgence of Isis; and adopt a broader regional policy that focuses on
protecting US interests and standing up for human rights and democracy rather than picking
sides in a regional civil war between dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Achieving US goals in the region will not be possible with a mere de-escalation of tensions
– we need to find a new path towards Iran and the Middle East.
America's top diplomat does not seem to think his job is to prevent war.
The
Washington Post
dives deeply into what is laughingly called the administration*'s "process" leading up to
the decision to kill Qasem Soleimani with fire last week. In short, all the "imminent threat" palaver was pure
moonshine. According to the
Post,
this particular catastrophe was brewed up for a while amid the stalactites
in the mind of Mike Pompeo, a Secretary of State who makes Henry Kissinger look like Gandhi.
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to
approve the killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice
President Pence, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against
Iran after it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S.
official. But recent changes to Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being
viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action
he had been advocating.
Poor Mike was morose. So, in an effort to bring himself out of the dumps, Mike decided to keep
feeding the rats in the president*'s head.
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential
campaign. But that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing
an American civilian contractor and injuring service members. On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the
president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian
aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision,
given the Pentagon's long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force
against Iran. One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper,
both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump,
senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
First-in-His-Class Mike Pompeo knows his audience. There's no question that he knows how to get
what he wants from a guy who doesn't know anything about anything, and who may have gone, as George V. Higgins once
put it, as soft as church music. This, I guess, is a skill. Of course, Pompeo's job is easier because the president*
is still a raving maniac on the electric Twitter machine.
The Russian General Staff has reinforced the air defences for Russians at the Iranian
nuclear reactor complex at Bushehr, on the Persian Gulf, according to sources in Moscow. At the
same time, Iran has allowed filming of the movement of several of its mobile S-300 air-defence
missile batteries to the south, covering the Iranian coastline of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf
of Oman. More secretly, elements of Russian military intelligence, electronic warfare, and
command and control advisers for Iran's air defence systems have been mobilized to support Iran
against US and allied attacks.
The range of the new surveillance extends well beyond the S-300 strike distance of 200
kilometres, and covers US drone and aircraft bases on the Arabian peninsula, as well as US
warships in (and under) the Persian Gulf and off the Gulf of Oman. Early warning of US air and
naval-launched attacks has now been cut below the old 4 to 6-minute Iranian threshold.
Counter-firing by the Iranian armed forces has been automated from attack warning and target
location.
This means that if the US is detected launching a swarm of missiles aimed at Iran's
air-defence sites, uranium mines, reactors, and military operations bunkers, Iran will launch
its own swarm of missiles at the US firing platforms, as well as at Saudi and other oil
production sites, refineries, and pipelines, as well tankers in ports and under way in the
Gulf.
"The armed forces of Iran," said a Russian military source requesting anonymity, "have air
defence systems capable of hitting air targets at those heights at which drones of the
Global Hawk series can
fly; this is about 19,000 to 20,000 metres. Iran's means of air defence are both
foreign-purchased systems and systems of Iran's own design; among them, in particular, the old
Soviet system S-75 and the new Russian S-300. Recently, Iran transported some S-300's to the
south, but that happened after the drone was shot down [June 20]. Russian specialists are
working at Bushehr now and this means that the S-300's are also for protection of Bushehr."
Flight distance between Bushehr and Bandar Abbas is about 570 kms. From Bandar Abbas
southeast to Kuhmobarak, the site of the Iranian missile firing against the US drone, is
another 200 kms.
Last Thursday, June 20, just after midnight, a US Global Hawk drone was tracked by Iran from
its launch at an airbase in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), south of Dubai. The take-off and
initial flight route appear to have been more than 300 kms from Iranian tracking radars. Four
hours later, the aircraft was destroyed by an Iranian missile at a point at sea off Kuhmobarak.
Follow the route tracking data published by the Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif
here .
KEY: blue line=drone flight path; yellow line=Iranian Flight Information Region (FIR);
red line=Iranian territorial waters; green line=Iranian internal waters; yellow dots=Iran radio
warnings sent; red square=point of impact. Source: Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif:
https://twitter.com/ The US claims
the point of impact was outside the red line.
Additional tracking data on the US drone operation have been published in a simulation by
the Iranian state news agency, Fars. The news agency claims the successful strike was by the
Iran-made Khordad missile, an S-300 copy; the altitude has not been reported
(design ceiling for the aircraft is 18,000 metres). The Russian military source says there is
now active coordination between Russian and Iranian military staffs. "About coordination, of
course there is participation of Russia in intelligence-sharing because of Bushehr and ISIS. We
have a long and successful partnership with Iran, especially in terms of fighting against
international terrorism." Two days after the drone incident, Russian specialist media
published Iranian video footage of the movement of S-300's on trailer trucks. This report
claims that although the S-300's are wheeled and motorized for rapid position changes, the use
of highway transporters was intended to minimize road fatigue on the weapons.
Iranian military sources have told western
reporters they have established "a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon,
Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case
of all-out war in the Middle East."
Maps published to date in open Russian military sources show the four main anti-air missile
defence groups (PVO) on Iranian territory, and the strike range of their missiles. The 3
rd and 4 th PVOs are now being reinforced to oppose US reinforcements at
sea and on Saudi and Emirati territory.
Key: yellow=units of the main air-defence (PVO) groups; split blue circles=military
bases; blue diamond=nuclear industry sites; red rings=kill range for missiles; solid
red=command-and-control operations centres. Source: Anatoly Gavrilov, "Before the storm",
National
Defence, April 2019
The weaknesses and vulnerabilities of Iranian defences against US air attack are, naturally,
state secrets. The open-source discussion by Russian air-defence expert Anatoly Gavrilov can be
followed here
. According to Gavrilov writing in March, the expected plan of US attack will be the use of
precision missiles and bombs at "primary targets plants for the production and processing of
nuclear fuel, uranium mines, production for its enrichment, refineries, other industrial
centers. But initially [the objective] will be to suppress (completely destroy) the air defense
system. The mass use of cruise missiles for various purposes and guided aircraft bombs will
disable the control system of Iran's troops and suppress the system of reconnaissance and
anti-aircraft missile fire. In this case, the task of the attacking side will be the
destruction in the first two or three days of 70% to 80% of the radar, and after that, up to
90% manned aircraft will begin to bomb only after the complete suppression of the air defense
system. The West protects its professional pilots, and it does not matter that the civilian
population of Iran will also suffer."
The main Iranian vulnerability facing American attack, reports Gavrilov, is less the range,
volume and density of firepower with which the Iranians can respond than the relatively slow
time they have shown to date for processing incoming attack data, fixing targets, and directing
counter-fire. "In today's conditions of organization and conduct of rapid air combat, a high
degree of automation of the processes of collection, processing, transmission and exchange of
radar information, development of solutions for repelling strikes, and conducting anti-aircraft
missile fire is extremely necessary."
RANGE AND ALTITUDE OF MAIN IRANIAN AIR DEFENCE WEAPONS
CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Horizontal axis, range in kilometres for each identified weapon; vertical axis, altitude of
interception. Source: Anatoly Gavrilov, National
Defence , April 2019
Gavrilov does not estimate how far the Iranians have been able to solve by themselves, and
with Russian help, the problems of automation and coordination of fire. To offset whatever
weakness may remain, he recommends specific technical contributions the Russians can make.
These include the technology of electronic countermeasures (ECM) to jam or deflect US targeting
signals and ordnance guidance systems.
While Gavrilov believes the Iranian military have already achieved high enough density of
fire against incoming weapons, he isn't sure the range and altitude of Iranian radars will be
good enough to match the attack risks. To neutralize those, he recommends "Russian-made
electronic warfare systems. The complex of EW systems is able to significantly reduce the
ability of attack aircraft to search for, detect and defeat ground targets; disrupt the onboard
equipment of cruise missiles in the GPS satellite navigation system; distort the readings of
radio altimeters of attack aircraft, cruise missiles and UAV's [unmanned aerial vehicle, drone]
"
In briefings for sympathetic western reporters, Iranian commanders are emphasizing the
Armageddon option; that is, however weak or strong their defences may prove to be under
prolonged US attack, the Iranian strategy is not to wait. Their plan, they say, is to
counter-attack against Arab as well as American targets as soon as a US missile attack
commences; that's to say, at launch, not inflight nor at impact.
Left: Kremlin photograph of the Security Council meeting at the Kremlin on the afternoon
of June 21. Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/ Right: Major
General Mohammad Baqeri, Iran's armed forces chief of staff.
The day following the US attack and Iranian success, President Vladimir Putin chaired a
meeting of his regular Security Council members in Moscow. The military were represented by the
Defence Minister, Sergei Shoigu. The US attack on Iran was the main issue on the table. "The
participants," reported the Kremlin communiqué, "discussed, in particular, the
developments in the Persian Gulf. They expressed serious concern over the rising tension and
urged the countries involved to show restraint, because unwise actions could have unpredictable
consequences in terms of regional and global stability."
Unpredictable consequences in Russian is being translated in Farsi to mean the cessation of
the oil trade in the Persian Gulf. "As oil and commodities of other countries are passing
through the Strait of Hormuz, ours are also moving through it," Major General Mohammad Baqeri,
the Iranian chief of staff,
said on April 28. "If our crude is not to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, others'
[crude] will not pass either."
Interestingly, after the US attack on Iraqi Militia
fighters on 31 December 2020, and the assassination of General Qassem Suleimani , on 2
January, the first thing President Trump could come up with was bragging that it was him who
gave the order to murder the popular military leader.
1. Being Santa Claus to Netanyahu, the far right and the very rich (Generous donors)
2. Doing the impossible, making Hillary look like the better of 2 terrible choices
3. Proving 42% of the American public aren't too swift.
Iran has incentives to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the
great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term
Two.
Notable quotes:
"... Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump. He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4 pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in your face in an hour, Sir ". ..."
"... Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on the military (which likely will obey). ..."
"... These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper. ..."
"... As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel occupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump" ..."
"... I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have? ..."
"... The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking. ..."
"... Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ..."
"... Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, 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 pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. ..."
"... We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies. If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL ..."
You have just several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria. These countries have large proxy
forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force
troops in Syria. These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said
will be used against our forces
The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC
Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed. In that
process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.
Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge? Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.
Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail. Make your own judgments.
pl
re " Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people "
Are you sure? I am not.
Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump.
He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4
pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in
your face in an hour, Sir ".
A good number of the so called grownups who gave such advice were (gameshow style) fired,
sometimes by twitter.
Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on
the military (which likely will obey).
These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even
after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper.
Israel could, if politically just a tad more insane, bomb Iran and thus invite the
inevitable retaliation. When that happens they'll cry for US aid, weapons and money because
they alone ~~~
(a) cannot defeat Iran (short of going nuclear) and ...
(b) Holocaust! We want weapons and money from Germany, too! ...
(c) they know that ...
(d) which does not lead in any way to Netanyahu showing signgs of self restraint or
reason.
Netanyahu just - it is (tight) election time - announced, in his sldedge hammer style
subtlety, that (he) Israel will annect the palestinian west jordan territory, making the
Plaestines an object in his election campaign.
IMO that idea is simply insane and invites more "troubles". But then, I didn't hear
anything like, say, Trump gvt protests against that (and why expect that from the dudes who
moved the US embassy to Jerusalem).
as for Trump and Netanyahu ... policy debate ... I had that here in mind, which pretty speaks
for itself. And I thought Trumo is just running for office in the US. Alas, it is a Netanyaho
campaign poster from the current election:
I generously assume that things like that only happen because of the hard and hard
ly work of Kushner on his somewhat elusive but of course GIGANTIC and
INCREDIBLE Middle East peace plan.
Kushner is probably getting hard and hard ly supported by Ivanka who just said that
she inherited her moral compass from her father. Well ... congatulations ... I assume.
I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has
cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate
nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have?
The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our
military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force
us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking.
Need I trot out Goering's statement regarding selling a war once more?
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back
to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor
in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, 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 pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are
intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy
does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we
could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies.
If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL
The 'ivestigations are a formality. The Saudis (with U.S. backing) are already saying that
the missiles were Iranian made and according to them, this proves that Iran fired them. The
Saudis are using the more judicious phrase 'behind the attack' but Pompeo is running with the
fired from Iran narrative.
How can we tell the difference between an actual Iranian manufactured missile vs one that
was manufactured in Yemen based on Iranian designs? We only have a few pictures Iranian
missiles unlike us, the Iranians don't toss them all over the place so we don't have any
physical pieces to compare them to.
Perhaps honest investigators could make a determination but even if they do exist they
will keep quiet while the bible thumping Pompeo brays and shamelessly lies as he is prone to
do.
These kinds of munition will leave hundreds of bits scattered all over their targets. I'm
waiting for the press conference with the best bits laid out on the tables.
I doubt that there will be any stencils saying 'Product of Iran', unless the paint smells
fresh.
1. I am still waiting to read some informed discussion concerning the *accuracy* of the
projectiles hitting their targets with uncanny precision from hundreds of miles away. What
does this say about the achievement of those pesky Eye-rainians? https://www.moonofalabama.org/images9/saudihit2.jpg
2. "The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the
IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.:
Ahem, Which forces are utterly destroyed? With respect colonel, you are not thinking
straight. An army with supersonic land to sea missiles that are highly accurate will make
minced meat of any fool's ship that dare attack it. The lesson of the last few months is that
Iran is deadly serious about its position that if they cannot sell their oil, no one else
will be able to either. And if the likes of the relatively broadminded colonel have not yet
learned that lesson, then this can only mean that the escalation ladder will continue to be
climbed, rung by rung. Next rung: deep sea port of Yanbu, or, less likely, Ra's Tanura.
That's when the price of oil will really go through the roof and the Chinese (and possibly
one or two of the Europoodles) will start crying Uncle Scam. Nuff Sed.
It sounds like you are getting a little "help" with this. You statement about the result
of a naval confrontation in the Gulf reflects the 19th Century conception that "ships can't
fight forts." that has been many times exploded. You have never seen the amount of firepower
that would be unleashed on Iran from the air and sea. Would the US take casualties? Yes, but
you will be destroyed.
We will have to agree to disagree. But unless I am quite mistaken, the majority view if not
the consensus of informed up to date opinion holds that the surest sign that the US is
getting ready to attack Iran is that it is withdrawing all of its naval power out of the
Persian Gulf, where they would be sitting ducks.
Besides, I don't think it will ever come to that. Not to repeat myself, but taking out
either deep sea ports of Ra's Tanura and/ or Yanbu (on the Red Sea side) will render Saudi
oil exports null and void for the next six months. The havoc that will play with the price of
oil and consequently on oil futures and derivatives will be enough for any president and army
to have to worry about. But if the US would still be foolhardy enough to continue to want to
wage war (i.e. continue its strangulation of Iran, which it has been doing more or less for
the past 40 years), then the Yemeni siege would be broken and there would be a two-pronged
attack from the south and the north, whereby al-Qatif, the Shi'a region of Saudi Arabia where
all the oil and gas is located, will be liberated from their barbaric treatment at the hands
of the takfiri Saudi scum, which of course is completely enabled and only made possible by
the War Criminal Uncle Sam.
AFAIK the only "US naval power" currently is the Abraham Lincoln CSG and I haven't seen any
public info that it was in the Persian Gulf. Aside from the actual straits, I'm not sure of
your "sitting ducks" assertion. First they wouldn't be sitting, and second you have the
problem of a large volume of grey shipping that would complicate the targeting problem. Of
course with a reduced time-of-flight, that also reduces target position uncertainty.
Forts are stationary.
Nothing I have read implies that Iran has a lot of investment in stationary forts.
Millennium Challenge 2002, only the game cannot be restarted once the enemy does not behave
as one hopes. Unlike in scripted war simulations, Opfor can win.
I remember the amount of devastation that was unleashed on another "backwards nation"
Linebackers 1 - 20, battleship salvos chemical defoliants, the Phoenix program, napalm for
dessert.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but that benighted nation was oriental; Iran is a
Caucasian nation full of Caucasian type peoples.
Nothing about this situation is of any benefit to the USA.
We do not need Saudi oil, we do not need Israel to come to the defense of the USA here in
North America, we do not need to stick our dick into the hornet's nest and then wonder why
they sting and it hurts. How many times does Dumb have to win?
3. Also, I can't imagine this event as being a very welcome one for Israeli military
observers, the significance of which is not lost on them, unlike their US counterparts. If
Yemen/ Iran can put the Abqaiq processing plant out of commission for a few weeks, then
obviusly Hezbollah can do the same for the giant petrochemical complex at Haifa, as well as
Dimona, and the control tower at Ben Gurion Airport. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/239251
It was late at night when I wrote this. Yeah, Right. the Iranians could send their massive
ground force into Syria where it would be chewed up by US and Israeli air. Alternatively they
could invade Saudi arabia.
Thank you for the reply but actually I was thinking that an invasion of Afghanistan would be
the more sensible ploy.
To my mind if the Iranian Army sits on its backside then the USAF and IAF will ignore it
to roam the length and breadth of Iran destroying whatever ground targets are on their
long-planned target-list.
Or that Iranian Army can launch itself into Afghanistan, at which point all of the USA
plans for a methodical aerial pummelling of Iran's infrastructure goes out the window as the
USAF scrambles to save the American forces in Afghanistan from being overrun.
Isn't that correct?
So what incentive is there for that Iranian Army to sit around doing nothing?
Iran will do what the USAF isn't expecting it to do, if for no other reason that it upsets
the USA's own game-plan.
There seems to be a bit of a hiatus in proceedings - not in these columns but on the ground
in the ME.
Everyone seems to be waiting for something.
Could this "something" be the decisive word fron our commander in chief Binyamin
Netanyahu?
The thing is he has just pretty much lost an election. Likud might form part of the next
government of Israel but most likely not with him at its head.
Does anyone have any ideas on what the future policy of Israel is likely to be under Gantz
or whoever? Will it be the same, worse or better?
The correct US move would be to ignore an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan and continue
leaving the place. The Iranian Shia can then fight the Sunni jihadi tribesmen.
Oh, I completely agree that if the Iranians launch an invasion of Afghanistan then the only
sensible strategy would be for the US troops to pack up and get out as fast as possible.
But that is "cut and run", which many in Washington would view as a humiliation.
Do you really see the beltway warriors agreeing to that?
A flaw in your otherwise sound argument is that the US military has not been seriously
engaged for several years and has been reconstituting itself with the money Trump has given
them.
Re-positioning of forces does not indicate that a presidential decision for war has been
made. The navy will not want to fight you in the narrow, shallow waters of the Gulf.
I would think that Mr. Trump would have a hard time sell a war with Iran over an attack on
Saudi Arabia. The good question about how would that war end will soon be raised and I doubt
there are many good answers.
The US should have gotten out of that part of the world a long time ago, just as they
should have paid more attention to the warnings in President Eisenhower's farewell
address.
The Perfumed Fops in the DOD restarted Millennium Challenge 2002,because Gen Van Riper had
used 19th and early 20th century tactics and shore based firepower to sink the Blue Teams
carrier forces. There was a script, Van Riper did some adlibbing. Does the US DOD think that
Iran will follow the US script? In a unipolar world maybe the USA could enforce a script,
that world was severely wounded in 1975, took a sucking chest wound during operation Cakewalk
in 2003 and died in Syria in 2015. Too many poles too many powers not enough diplomacy. It
will not end well.
We would crush Iran at some cost to ourselves but the political cost to the anti-globalist
coalition would catastrophic. BTW Trump's "base" isn't big enough to elect him so he cannot
afford to alienate independents.
Even if Rouhani and the Iranian Parliament personally designed, assembled, targeted and
launched the missiles (scarier sounding version of "drones"), then they should be
congratulated, for the Saudi tyrant deserves every bad thing that he gets.
prawnik (Sid) in this particular situation goering's glittering generalization does not
apply. Trump needs a lot of doubting suburbanites to win and a war will not incline them to
vote for him.
Looks like President Trump is walking it back, tweet: I have just instructed the Secretary of
the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!
I doubt there will be armed conflict of any kind.
Everything Trump does from now (including sacking the Bolton millstone) will be directed at
winning 2020, and that will not be aided by entering into some inconclusive low intensity
attrition war.
Iran, on the other hand, will be doing everything it can to increase the chance of a Democrat
administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of
anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
This may be a useful tool for determining their next move, but the limit of their actions
would be when some Democrats begin making the electorally damaging mistake of critising Trump
for not retaliating against Iranian provocations.
Washington (CNN) The increasingly chaotic
aftermath of the US strike against Iran has left President Donald Trump's team scrambling
to keep up with his unpredictable decisions and inflammatory pronouncements, and suggests
dysfunction at the heart of the nation's critical national security process.
"... It is clear to me after watching that extraordinary video of Trump's ignorance and stupidity that he is the idiot piper leading the West into the abyss. There could be no better epitome of the neoliberal sociopathy that drives our collapsing phase of late-capitalism. Putin's wet dream: a narcissist half-wit driving the western bus. ..."
"... As for trying to put the blame on Pentagon staffers, even if they chose such weird options for Trump to choose, at the end of the day, it's the President himself who chose - as another one said decades ago, "the buck stops here" and the guy in the Oval Office has to bear the full responsibility. ..."
The New York Times reported yesterday that Trump picked the 'wrong' item from a list of
possible courses of action that the military had presented him. That sounded like bullshit
invented to take blame away from Trump and to put it onto the military.
To me it looks more like the opposite: the Times's Pentagon sources pinning it
on loose cannon Trump's going with the extreme option that the military hadn't intended him
to. But whatever. The U.S. is facing the same harsh new reality regardless.
The Times in London ran with a front page "We Will Kill UK Troops, warns Iran" (
here's the Guardian summary ). Despite initial reports that the UK and EU were distancing
themselves from the assassination, the MSM have clearly been given their orders to begin
banging the drum for war. The scramble for a casus belli reminds me of WMD, so I think a war
of some scope is strongly desired and Boris Johnson has been brought on board. France will
stay out and Germany will look first at Russia's position.
It is clear to me after watching that extraordinary video of
Trump's ignorance and stupidity that he is the idiot piper leading the West into the abyss.
There could be no better epitome of the neoliberal sociopathy that drives our collapsing
phase of late-capitalism. Putin's wet dream: a narcissist half-wit driving the western
bus.
Trump is probably not stupid enough to launch such a war and certainly not during an
election year.
During his campaign Trump said he wanted the U.S. military out of the Middle East. Iran
and its allies will help him to keep that promise.
Hasnt Trump proved he is stupid enough by now? How much more evidence is needed to drop
him? Trump start wars to get another election win, I think that is obvious? And allies
keeping him back? Which allieshave even remotely criticized his threats and murder? People
need to realize that there is nothing stopping Trump, he and Israel will keep bombing and
unfortunately its not much Iran could do.
Dan: The guy fought the Talibans and ISIS, and has always been opposed to them; that's good
enough for me, and that's definitely more than any of the coward and treacherous Western
leaders that pussy-foot instead of calling out the US for what tantamounts to a declaration
of war on both Iraq and Iran.
As for trying to put the blame on Pentagon staffers, even if they chose such weird
options for Trump to choose, at the end of the day, it's the President himself who chose - as
another one said decades ago, "the buck stops here" and the guy in the Oval Office has to
bear the full responsibility.
Col. Lang is once again warning that Trump trying to keep the troops in Iraq would be a
terrible mistake with bad consequences, and that it's just not realistic. He probably prefers
not to say it that way when stating it's a long road from Kuwait to Baghdad, but if shit hits
the fan and Iraqis decide to go after the US troops, then those who can't evacuate fast
enough will end up in a position similar to that of the British in Kabul, in the very first
days of 1842.
Aghast at your words, dan. I am an aging homemaker from usa midwest and I have yet to stop
weeping for Qassem Soleimani, his poor widow, and the rest of his family. I feel I owe him a
personal debt for fighting zionists/terrorists/imperialists, for if they are not defeated
once and for all, my captive government will continue in perpetuity to serve their
horridmurderousthieving agenda, enslaving my every descendent and robbing humanity of any
chance for peace on this pretty garden harbor planet. May justice be done to give peace a
chance.
What I wonder is who is the genius in the chain of command who brought this "opportunity" to
Trump's attention and who vetted the decision? Trump made a large error when he surrounded
himself with neocons (Abrahams, Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Esper). Anyway it's a tangle and it's
pretty clear he (Trump) is in over his head. When he paniks he talks tough and he's making
threats. It's also no wonder he has not received any support on his decision to murder
Soleimani. From anywhere. Not even Israel is publicly supporting the decision. I think that
surprised him. For 350 years there has been an unwritten rule that you don't go after
generals or ambassadors or visiting politicians unless they are actively engaged in a combat
zone. Remember the outrage when the barbarian Libyans killed a mere station chief? How
outraged we were? Well, Trump overtly and with malice of forethought broke the rule. If I
were the Iranian's and I could get to any U.S. generals or high ranking officials (working or
visiting overseas) that's what I would do. Create animus within his own military and cabinet
departments. Get them at the supermarket, speaking engagements, on vacation, at home,
wherever. Doesn't matter. Wherever you can get them. Shitty thing to do no doubt but he
started it and something the American and other populations would instinctively understand.
Blood for blood retribution. No need to explain it to people.
......." Trump is probably not stupid enough to launch such a war and certainly not during an
election year."
b,
you are assuming that you are dealing with someone with a full deck of cards. If He was
stupid enough to kill a sovereign nation's top general, he will be stupid enough to start a
war. In fact that is his biggest wish. Elections be damned. Maybe the military would put on
the breaks but not this stupid sick man.
Few points: (1) Thanks to Trump, Pompeo and Esper every American soldier everywhere now wears
a bulls eye;
(2) Any soldier -including Americans - might find a great deal to admire in Soliemani, a guy
with a humble background who accomplished an extraordinary track record, a legendary
strategist';
(3) Has the US military's 'faith' in the sanity and competence of the civilian authority
been stretched near to some breaking point?
Pence claimed on twitter that Suleimani assisted the 12 9/11 hijackers, for which
he was instantly ridiculed.
Trump wants billions payback for airbases in Iraq that were already fully transferred upon
American withdrawal in december 2011.
BTW, the trolls are obvious trolls. Could be from Tel Aviv, but perhaps from London, too
(Integrity Initiative) Brits must be banging their heads against the wall over orange utan
dropping a monkey wrench into the gears of the imperial machine that they too depend on. You
bet that they need to spin this hard.
"We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there. It cost billions of
dollars to build. Long before my time. We're not leaving unless they pay us back for it,"
Trump said
Paying us back?
Just ask the Iraqis - here is a reminder of what the bitter reality of economic violence
looks like:
The Crimes of Neoliberal Rule in Occupied Iraq
The clearest statement of intent for the future of the Iraqi economy is contained in Order
39, which permitted full foreign ownership of Iraqi state-owned assets and decreed that
over 200 state-owned enterprises, including electricity, telecommunications and the
pharmaceuticals industry, could be dismantled. Order 39 also permitted 100 per cent foreign
ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move their
profits out of Iraq. It has been argued already in the British courts that Order 39
constitutes an act of ILLEGAL OCCUPATION under the terms of the Hague and Geneva treaties :
The effect of Article 55 is to outlaw privatization of a country's assets whilst it is
under occupation by a hostile military power."
The mandate of the CPA was clear: to meet the 'humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people', to
meet the costs of 'reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure', to meet the costs
of disarmament and the civil administration of the country and other purposes 'benefiting
the people of Iraq'. The terms of UNSCR 1483 are unequivocal in this regard. It was this
resolution that established the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI)
• DFI revenue, was available to the CPA immediately, in the form of $100,000 bundles
of $100 bills, shrink-wrapped in $1.6 million 'cashpaks'. Pallets of cashpaks were flown
into Baghdad direct from the US Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Some of this cash was
held by the CPA in the basement of its premises in Baghdad Republican Palace. It has been
reported that Paul Bremer controlled a personal slush fund of $600 million (Harriman 2005).
One advantage of the use of cash payments and transfers was that the CPA transactions left
no paper trail and therefore they remained relatively invisible
• The disbursal of Iraqi oil revenue by the CPA also has had profound implications for
the future structure of the Iraqi economy. ..Spending (in excess of $20 billion, partly
based upon projected income) had to be underwritten by US government loans .. (which) has
effectively deepened the debt that was originally accumulated during the period of
UN-enforced sanctions following the 1991 Gulf War (Alexander 2005).
• The right to self-determination and sovereign decision making over economic, social
and cultural development is in international law a principle of jus cogens In this regard,
the CPA clearly acted beyond its remit in terms of both the spirit and the letter of the
international laws of conflict. It is the anti-democratic and pre-emptive nature of
Anglo-American economic restructuring that most clearly demonstrates that the CPA regime
was in violation of international law.
• Similar violations arise from the CPA's governance of Iraqi oil wealth. Article 49
of the Hague rules notes that 'money contributions' levied in the occupied territory 'shall
only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question'.
The political strategy was characteristically neo-liberal (evasion of 'red tape' and any
obstacles that might hinder or limit the reallocation of wealth to the growing armies of
private enterprises). This strategy was given momentum by the granting of formal LEGAL
IMMUNITY to US personnel for activities related to the reconstruction economy. On the same
day that the CPA was created by UNSCR 1483, George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13303, 2
The terms of the exemption provide immunity from prosecution for the theft or embezzlement
of oil revenue, or incidentally, from any safety or environmental violations that might be
committed in the course of producing Iraqi oil. Executive Order 13303 is therefore a
guarantee of IMMUNITY from PROSECUTION for white-collar and corporate crimes that involve
Iraqi oil. Two months later, in June 2003, Paul Bremer issued CPA Order 17. Bremer's decree
guaranteed that members of the coalition military forces, the CPA, foreign missions and
contractors -- and their personnel -- would remain immune from the Iraqi legal process.
This carte blanche provision of immunity was extended again in June 2004.
What we are beginning to trace out here is a US government policy of suspending the
normal rule of law in the US and Iraq (so much for respecting Iraqi sovereigntx...)
The three most important things for doing battle are logistics, logistics and logistics, and
as Pat lang explains, the US forces in Syria are essentially fucked:
We have around 5,500 people there now spread across the country in little groups engaged in
logistics, intelligence and training missions. They are extremely vulnerable. There are
something like 150 marines in the embassy. There are also a small number of US combat
forces in Syria east and north of the Euphrates river. These include a battalion of US Army
National Guard mechanized troops "guarding" Syria's oil from Syria's own army and whatever
devilment the Iranians might be able to arrange.
4. This is an untenable logistical situation. Supply and other functions require a major
airfield close to Baghdad. We have Balad airbase and helicopter supply and air support from
there into Baghdad is possible from there but may become hazardous. Iraq is a big country.
It is a long and lonely drive from Kuwait for re-supply from there or evacuation through
there. The same thing is true of the desert route to Jordan.
Unless it reinvades and reoccupies, the United States will be gone from Syria,
probably just after the election in November so Trump can say he stood up to the Iraqis.
Because he's just a bully with delusions of grandeur.
International crises often lead, at least initially, to surging support for a country's
leadership. And that's clearly happening now. Just weeks ago the nation's leader faced public
discontent so intense that his grip on power seemed at risk. Now the assassination of Qassim
Suleimani has transformed the situation, generating a wave of patriotism that has greatly
bolstered the people in charge.
Unfortunately, this patriotic rallying around the flag is happening not in America, where
many are (with good reason) deeply suspicious of Donald Trump's motives, but in Iran
.
In other words, Trump's latest attempt to bully another country has backfired -- just like
all his previous attempts.
From his first days in office, Trump has acted on the apparent belief that he could easily
intimidate foreign governments -- that they would quickly fold and allow themselves to be
humiliated. That is, he imagined that he faced a world of Lindsey Grahams, willing to abandon
all dignity at the first hint of a challenge.
But this strategy keeps failing; the regimes he threatens are strengthened rather than
weakened, and Trump is the one who ends up making humiliating concessions. Paul Krugman's
Newsletter Get a better understanding of the economy -- and an even deeper look at what's on
Paul's mind.
Sign up here.
Remember, for example, when Trump promised "
fire and fury " unless North Korea halted its nuclear weapons program? He claimed triumph
after a 2018 summit meeting with Kim Jong-un, North Korea's leader. But Kim made no real
concessions, and North Korea recently announced that it might resume
tests of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.
Or consider the trade war with China, which was supposed to bring the Chinese to their
knees. A deal has supposedly been reached, although details remain scarce; what's clear is that
it falls far short of U.S. aims, and that Chinese officials are jubilant about their
success in facing Trump down.
Why does Trump's international strategy, which might be described as winning through
intimidation, keep failing? And why does he keep pursuing it anyway?
One answer, I suspect, is that like all too many Americans, Trump has a hard time grasping
the fact that other countries are real -- that is, that we're not the only country whose
citizens would rather pay a heavy price, in money and even in blood, than make what they see as
humiliating concessions.
Ask yourself, how would Americans have reacted if a foreign power had assassinated Dick
Cheney, claiming that he had the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on his hands? Don't
answer that Suleimani was worse. That's beside the point. The point is that we don't accept the
right of foreign governments to kill our officials. Why imagine that other countries are
different?
Of course, we have many people in the diplomatic corps with a deep knowledge of other
nations and their motivations, who understand the limits of intimidation. But anyone with that
kind of understanding has been excluded from Trump's inner circle.
Now, it's true that for many years America did have a special leadership position, one that
sometimes involved playing a role in reshaping other countries' political systems. But here's
where Trump's second error comes in: He has never shown any sign of understanding why
America used to be special.
Part of the explanation, of course, was raw economic and military power: America used to be
just much bigger than everyone else. That is, however, no longer true. For example, by some key
measures China's economy is significantly
bigger than that of the United States.
Even more important, however, was the fact that America was something more than a big
country throwing its weight around. We always stood for something larger.
Oh, and because we were committed to enforcing rules, we were also relatively trustworthy;
an alliance with America was meaningful, because we weren't the kind of country that would
betray an ally for the sake of short-term political convenience.
Trump, however, has turned his back on everything that used to make America great. Under his
leadership, we've become nothing more than a big, self-interested bully -- a bully with
delusions of grandeur, who isn't nearly as tough as he thinks. We abruptly abandon allies like
the Kurds; we honor war
criminals ; we slap punitive tariffs on friendly nations like Canada for no good reason.
And, of course, after more than
15,000 lies , nothing our leader and his minions say can be trusted.
Trump officials seem taken aback by the uniformly negative consequences of the Suleimani
killing: The Iranian regime is empowered, Iraq has turned hostile and nobody has stepped up in
our support. But that's what happens when you betray all your friends and squander all your
credibility.
It's finally abundantly clear that the great deal maker is nothing more than an emperor with
no clothes. The real shame is the inability of a large part of America to see this for what
it is: a failure of leadership from voter on up. Unfortunately, America has lost its moral
ability to lead, and more's the pity as the ascendancy of others, like China, will not be as
progressive as America was in the past. You'd think that the great deal maker would
understand that leaders are not bullies. Sad.
I have been reading a lot of commentary on very little news. One thing that is not generally
mentioned is that while Iran is no match for us by itself, they are not without friends,
i.e., Russia (is there a mutual defense treaty still in place?) China and North Korea. On the
other hand our allies are ... well maybe Israel. We haven't always been the nice guys.
Remember the novel 'The Ugly American' the 1956 novel by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer?
Excellent analysis. I note that the streets of Teheran were crowded by hundred of thousands
people, because one of their leaders were killed. The US President's decision put his own
country in danger of facing another costly war. Why aren't there hundreds of thousands of
people crowding the streets of Washington, New-York or Los Angeles, asking for his removal
from office? I keep reading that US citizens are patriots, proud of their country, their
values, their constitution. Where are those proud guys? Your streets should be full of
protesters, strikes to defend endangered democratic values should happen everywhere, artists
should occupy the media space to denounce the abuses of a mad man. The passivity of US
population shows that there are more, much more Americans supporting Trump and his ideas than
votes show. And it also makes more and more probable than you'll see more Trump and
Trump-like presidents in the future.
Did the assassination of Suleimani objectively make the United States safer and/or advance
its interests now or in the future? The answer is meaningless in understanding Trump's
decision because the question is meaningless to Trump. If assassinating Suleimani made Trump
feel better in the moment, made him feel "strong" than that is more than reason enough. The
future is not Trump's problem, if it turns out badly he'll just lie about it and blame
someone else safe in the knowledge that his core supporters also prefer feeling strong in the
moment than dealing with a messy reality. And his supporters of convenience? The Lindsey
Graham's of the world? They are in too deep to turn back now. Like all bubbles, the belief in
Trump requires a suspension of a belief in reality. Likr all bubbles it will eventually
burst. And this one is going to leave a mess that will take decades to repair. If we are
lucky.
Suleimani worse than Cheney? Don't think so. A simple body count makes that clear. Plus, it's
unclear Suleimani has ever encouraged torture. Any notion that the US was ever a force for
good in the world is, well, very strange. Just work your way backwards listing things we've
done, I'm not holding my breath until you get to a good one.
What's really frightening is this president's completely impulsive behavior. There's no plan,
no endgame, just a series of inexplicable tantrums (or inactions). Right now, foreign policy
has no more direction than when Gilligan and the Skipper randomly spun the ship's wheel in
the opening of "Gilligan's Island."
I'd love to see a column on the financial costs of endless war to us here in the USA. We've
apparently spent trillions in Afghanistan alone. How much did we spend in Iraq? How does that
compare to our overall budget? What could the money have been spent on instead? How much
would a war with Iran cost? I realize that all of those numbers are out there, but I haven't
seen them packaged together in a way that really drives home how much money we are wasting.
Paul, please write this column!
I'll never understand why the USA thinks it has to have it's hand in every countries business
(other than controlling all the world's natural resources). If the USA had stayed home and
minded it's own business, they'd have excellent healthcare, affordable education and a much
improved infrastructure. Apparently the military/industrial complex has no interest in
that...
As bad as Trump's foreign affairs blunders have been, this is no time to gloss over earlier
American blunders in foreign affairs. In Iran in 1953, the CIA engineered the removal of
their prime minister, Mosaddegh, to be replaced by officials more amenable to British and
American oil interests, marking the start of tensions between Iran and America. And then
there was George W. Bush's Iraq war, an epic blunder shrouded in lies. Overthrowing
governments in South America and replacing them by dictators who gave United Fruit and other
corporations what they wanted belongs on this long, ignoble list.
Trump's not just a weak bully pretending to be a tough guy, which is bad enough, but he's
also the nation's leading Dunning–Kruger citizen, with delusions of his own superiority
that comes from his inability to recognize his own lack of ability and lack of intelligence.
Without any self-awareness, Dunning-Krugerites like Trump can't recognize their own
incompetence or ignorance, and instead remain deluded with their 'superior' sense of
themselves even though they're incompetent, unqualified and often clueless. "I'm like a smart
person" said Trump to a CIA audience the day after he was inaugurated, using a phrase that no
smart person would ever use. The University of Pennsylvania's student newspaper reported that
Trump never made the Dean's List. Former classmates described him as a lackluster student.
You don't have to get A's in school to be smart, but Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen said this
about Trump to the House Oversight Committee : "I'm talking about a man who declares himself
brilliant, but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges and the College Board to
never release his grades or SAT scores." "I don't think you have to put him on the couch to
see that someone who has such a consistent need to build himself up and belittle everyone
else must have some problems with self-esteem," said Trump biographer Gwenda Blair. "It's a
lifelong theme for him." Or as Charles Darwin wrote: "Ignorance more frequently begets
confidence than does knowledge." Sad.
Whether you like it or not, Donald Trump is the (top) representative of the US. What happened
is fully the doing of the USA as a country, and not that of Mr. Trump as a person. And this
is the face of all Americans, including you, for the rest of the world to see. If you don't
like what you see in the mirror, seeking to change it might be a better idea than refusing
your part of responsibility, however small.
The American narrative that we support democracy, human rights, our allies, and freedom, is
gone. Trump and his minions have replaced this narrative with 'America first' and accordingly
we are a diminished nation with no moral compass. Values mean nothing. Shared history means
nothing. Shared sacrifices mean nothing. Today everything is a transaction to win or lose,
and we are losing.
It seems clear that Suleimani was a "Bad Guy". What's more profoundly disturbing is that it
appears that this fact was the extent of the calculation that went into the order for his
demise. Perhaps the most shocking part of this story is the absence of any apparent strategy
or end game in a decision that amounts to an act of war against a major power in a region of
the world as deeply unsettled as the Middle East. There are lots of bad guys out there.
Depending upon your point of view, many reside in this country. What happens when leaders
around the world apply the "Bad Guy" litmus test as their reasoning to justify an act of war?
It means that we will soon find ourselves in the midst of a world war. Since the Senate can't
muster the courage necessary to perform its constitutional obligation, let's all pray we can
vote the madman out of office before it is too late.
Excellent article by Krugman. The entire world is now suffering the cataclysmic consequences
of the bizarro worldview of the 46% of American voters who electoral-colleged that
world-historic con artist into power in November 2016. It is so interesting and is indeed
true that the majority of the Iranian people do not like their regime and are indeed much
closer to the values of the West than Saudi Arabia, etc. Iranians I know in both Europe and
the US are much more enlightened and secular than people from other Mideast countries. When
Trump claimed to be anti-war in October 2016, it was so interesting that he was not able to
articulate even one sentence explaining WHY he was anti-war. It was a giveaway that it was
fraud. He just said it to get votes. His entire personality and personal culture scream I AM
A WARMONGER. No empathy, no respect for human life. It will be interesting to see what the
"great" Tulsi Gabbard comes up with now.
@PATRICK . In another sphere, Democrats have been left to clean up the fiscal mess created by
irresponsible Republican tax cuts (by Reagan, GW Bush, and Trump). Despite Republican claims
that the "tax cuts would pay for themselves", it never happened. In the wake of the tax cuts,
the debt always grew faster than the economy; GDP as a percentage of publicly held debt has
grown from about 25% when Reagan got started to 78% now -- and it's headed to 95%, according
to the CBO.
Dr. Krugman assumes, incorrectly I think, that Trump is a rational actor with an almost
unfailing tendency to misjudge the consequences of his actions. No, for Trump, worrying about
consequences is for losers. He is in it for the pure chaos, the utter joy of setting a
million things in motion at once with no predictable outcome, and skating clear of the
vortex. This is textbook pathological narcissisism.
From my training and practice in mediation and conflict resolution, I know one thing for
sure: without empathy, without a reasonably accurate "theory of mind," not only can you not
successfully engage in negotiation, you cannot even think strategically. Trump has been
called many things, though not, as I would suggest, an actual solipsist. He doesn't believe
other countries are real because he doesn't believe any one but himself is real.
The plot is much thicker. It became obvious when Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear
Agreement that he was declaring economic war on Iran. He has been pushing, or has been
pushed, toward conflict all along. Perhaps the Evangelicals in his administration have been
behind this move, as they support every destabilizing move Trump has made in the Middle East.
That he is a dupe and proxy for other people's agenda seems apparent by the child-like
reasons and responses he twitters. His talking points have been fed to him. Our dear leader.
Heaven help us!!
@David, Iran is not a third-world fleabag banana republic. It's a first world nation with a
strong, committed military and millions more eager to enlist. A war with Iran would cost
hundreds of thousands of military lives and at least as many civilians. It's the United
States that is the aggressor here, not Iran, and feeling in the US is running strongly
against more war.
America hasn't been trustworthy in a long time. We lost all moral authority in 1953 when we
installed the Shah in Iran at the behest of the same oil companies that have been destroying
our planet ever since. Less than a decade after coming to the rescue of a world at war, we
began shredding the goodwill we'd earned. Trump is just continuing that fine tradition -- as
George W. Bush did after 9-11 with his ill-considered invasions. When will we learn?
Kudos to you, Mr. Krugman. One of the best, and more to the point, articles I've read about
this debacle. Particularly regarding America's legitimacy through adherence to laws and
respect for alies and partners. That used to be a great part of what made America a reliable
superpower. Not any more. And it's sad to see Europeans and other democracies forced to make
concessions to dictatorships like China, because America can't be relied upon anymore. This
benefits no one, particularly democracies. However, instead of taking lessons from the
universal scorn and silence this action has prompted at home and abroad, Trump will only see
it as further evidence that he must keep on bullying others into submission -- with
increasingly bad results. At some point, America -- even Republicans -- will have to wake up
and smell the coffee of what's really at stake here.
I do not think that he really took any serious geo-political considerations into account when
he ordered the attack. I believe that to him assassinating the Iran general just looked like
an excellent opportunity to distract the nation from the impeachment process, which is
getting more and more serious for him, and to regain the upper hand and the center stage.
Besides, in an international crisis his position would be reinforced despite the impeachment,
because who would undermine the government effectiveness and the authority of the commander
in chief in times of national emergency, right? Well, as your column points out, this type of
approach is, once again, wrong. Just another outstanding example of incompetence and another
immense damage done to the country.
Interesting that in the last paragraph Dr. Krugman states that "Trump officials seem taken
aback by the uniformly negative consequences of the Suleimani killing". From what I saw on
Fox news, they were portraying the Suleimani killing as the greatest US foreign policy
achievement of the last decade. I fear that those who matter in the Trump administration
(i.e. mostly Trump, surrounded by his base) may be unaware of negative consequences of
anything he does, including this.
Trump's people are now telling us that the U.S. won't cooperate with the Iraqi government's
demand that we pull our troops out of that country. Which makes ours an army of occupation,
for the first time since Bush and Cheney sent U.S. forces into Iraq. And, by the way,
Suleimani was no worse than Cheney who actually DID have the blood of hundreds of thousands
of Iraqis on his hands (not to mention American servicemen and women).
The years 1945 to 1975 created a distorted image for most Baby Boomers. The United States
appeared, and in many ways was, without any viable competitor on the world stage. This image
was largely result of the fact that most of the industrialized world had been destroyed by a
World War and was still recovering from it. By 1975 that dominance had largely come to an
end. Japan, Germany, and other industrialized powers were outpacing the United States in both
production and quality. Then OPEC entered the scene and showed how truly vulnerable the
United States was. The fall of the Soviet Bloc masked what should have been a harsh
realization, but that realization never sunk in. Many, and Trump is a prime example, still
believe we live in a world like the 1950s, where U.S. power is undisputed. It is not, and the
more we act like it is, only to have it thrown back in our face that it is not, the weaker
and less capable we appear. The sooner Trump and his delusional sycophants leave DC, the
sooner we can start the years, maybe even generations, that it will take rebuild respect for
the United States abroad.
The question is not one of Qassim Suleimani's character--there is no question he was
responsible for a number of American casualties and civilian casualties as well--but rather
one of whether taking him out was the right move. Taking out a high-level military or
government official, no matter what the justification might be, is an act of war and will be
regarded as such. You don't undertake an action like this unless you've really thought
through the consequences and are prepared for a response. President Trump clearly did not
think this through and we're all going to have to suffer the consequences as a result.
@Ronald B. Duke Not everything is tactical. For the Republicans, perhaps, who have long ago
shed any vestige of a moral compass and rely solely on tactics - whatever wins, whatever -
but for Democrats impeachment wasn't a "gambit", it was a duty that many of them had to be
dragged to the table to perform. The fact that they did despite the political risk shows that
at least one party still places the welfare of our nation over their personal political
fortune. We hardly need sticks to beat up Trump. He does a fine job all by himself. The
problem is that he is a human wrecking ball, and he is now that he is pretty much alone in
the white house, or anyway surrounded by people deeply unqualified to be there, his wrecking
is just getting more dangerous. It would be one thing to "disagree" with US foreign policy -
if there was in fact a foreign policy. But there is none left. Trump has wrecked that too.
The only thing left for anyone is to vote this president out of office, if only to make the
country and world a safer place.
The US has always used its economic and military power to get what it wants from other
countries (enemies and allies alike). Trump has taken this to another level. And in doing so,
he has abandoned the responsibilities that comes with that power. Trump's power has gone to
his head. He is using sanctions and military might to do whatever he wants. What's to stop
him from using these tools to extract assets, wealth and subservience from countries like
Australia, the UK, Europe etc. While I have great fear of China's intentions, I am glad that
China can serve somewhat as a counterbalance to Trump's greed and aggression. The rest of the
world needs to unite and push back against Trump's overblown and growing sense of
entitlement. I now regard America as being as big a threat as China to world peace and
prosperity.
The first and most fundamental rule of strategy and negotiation--something I teach on the
first day and most days of my game theory class-- is "Know your enemy." (Or if you prefer a
less confrontational and less pithy version, "Know the person you are dealing with.") Trump
fails over and over because he doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and won't be told. He has
no idea what is important to them or how they view things. So he imagines them all backing
down and doing as he wishes and glorifying him, which is what he wants and needs everyone to
do. But most of us know that it doesn't work that way.
Like the Roman period termed Pax Romana and the later Pax Britannica (1815–1914), Pax
Americana being promoted as a time of relative peace and stability is built on too many lies
to recount here. What America is doing, under Trump, is no different to the 1840's when the
US seized half of Mexico. From that time many people believed that the US had a 'manifest
destiny' to occupy and settle all the land bounded by Canada, the Gulf of Mexico, and the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. That the US is somehow the upholder of universal moral
principles is a pill too hard to swallow for anyone who has been or is still under their
imperial thumb, or has been 'bombed back to the stone age'. Sometimes the insularity of
thinking and learning about the rest of the world astounds me.
Because of the enormous power of the United States military at Trump's disposal and because
Trump is virtually a madman, this is an extremely dangerous and frightening situation. I've
said it before and I'll say it again: if we stumble into World War III under Trump, it will
be the world against the United States with Trump the target everyone will be focused on. And
the U.S. cannot win a war against the rest of the world. So out will come the nuclear
weapons. And then it will be the end of civilization as we know it. And "there ain't no Jesus
gonna come from the sky" to set things right.
Krugman brilliant as usual. Useful to go back to 1953 and the US-organized coup bringing down
an elected Iranian prime minister in collusion with the Shah since he might be too left-wing
for US tastes/preferences, and, as US Ambassador Loy Henderson described him, "so lacking in
stability and clearly dominated by emotions and prejudices" (hmmm - who does that sound
like?) to not be a sufficient "bulwark" against communism (see David Halberstam's book The
Fifties). US involvement in regime changes, beginning with Iran, have been disasters,
especially in the Middle East including Afghanistan. Yet somehow presidents who say they
don't want to be doing that (e.g. W. and Trump) and want to reduce our involvement (Obama -
but then supporting the Syrian rebels was a big US mistake destabilizing things) end up
worsening our involvement and making a big mess of no-win situations. And as Krugman aptly
points out - would we tolerate other nations doing these things to us? Isn't that the basic
Christian and other religions' mantra for living a good life? As the 60s peace song goes:
"When will they ever learn; when will they, ever learn?"
"Why does Trump's international strategy, which might be described as winning through
intimidation, keep failing? And why does he keep pursuing it anyway?" It's simple. Soft power
strategies are much more effective in the contemporary international system than hard power
strategies; hence the failure. Why does he keep pursuing it? When you lose soft power and the
ability to form coalitions, the only thing left is hard power.
"Trump the Intimidator Fails Again" Don't underestimate this guy. A normal person would
resign. He will not. The senate refuses to save the country, our destiny must have been thus.
Our time upon the stage will end. The American spirit will have expired. It's worth a fight
to the bitter end so... Write, vote, advocate... do whatever you can to avert this seemingly
unavoidable disaster. On Iran, we should drop the sanctions and apologize.
I have always read Dr. Krugman's column with some degree of trust and respect. But this time
I must take some exception to what he said. Such as "we weren't the kind of country that
would betray an ally for the sake of short-term political convenience". Really? Let's not
even talk about the Kurds. Ask the S Koreans after UN authorized the reunification of both N
and S Korea. Ask the government of S Vietnam and that is beyond whether or not we had any
business being there, not to mention the government (corrupt as it was) of Nationalist China.
Also, let the people decide whether or not W's adventure into Iraq ended up being a betrayal
- do we really have the right to march in the way we did and left the country in a total
wreck? Then Afghanistan - aren't we preparing even as I typed this for yet another betrayal?
As to Putin's Donny (certainly not we as Americans) slapping punitive tariffs on friendly
nations like Canada for no good reason, maybe there is a good reason after all. Do we really
know that is not what Putin wants? Reply 22 Recommend Share
On the surface all this criticism of the maniacal chief executive in charge of the federal
government in Washington would appear to be harsh. But no, it's by far too tame. And one fact
that always transcends all self-criticism seems to be the critical "but" included when
comparing our criminal actions across the globe in order to advance the so-called "national
interest" with other nations' doings. Never mind that from its very inception this country
has always guided itself by its favorite mantra of "manifest destiny" to physically demolish
others in its way toward pursuing openly imperialistic and bloody goals. Enough said already.
We see what Edmund Burke called unbounded power with undefined purpose. It is policy which is
as feeble as it is violent. The experts who offer presidents choices in actions always list
least to best, in defining potential success to match policy objectives to most strident with
unknown results. Trump chose the most strident with the most unknown result as if he can
bully equally strong-minded people who also talk to god as he talks to himself. Equally bad
combinations on each side. If, and it is still a big IF, given Trump's long held belief that
experts are not to be believed, that taking out the top commander would be a shot to cower
the unhappy masses in Iran, it served instead to unify them in the time honored way of
starting wars to unify at home. That might have been Trump's real objective here given all
the deserved impeachment activity, but it also served to unify the people smart policy would
have worked to divide. The plumb line drops straight from the decision to walk away from the
nuclear treaty all be cause Obama negotiated it with international expertise and support.
Now, the dogs of war are being unleashed all for pet peeves. Reply 22 Recommend Share
The way to look at what Trump does isn't to measure by what we would deem proper and
appropriate but, rather, how it personally benefits him and is perceived by his base. Has his
order to assassinate a foreign military leader increased or decreased his popularity with
Republicans? Does his base even care that we have an entire intelligence apparatus that is
supposed to advise a president and that a functioning NSA would have done all it could to
discourage him? The same goes for his generals. They carried out his order. Has anyone quit
since the order was carried out? Has James Mattis come out in public and told the public how
Trump makes his decisions? No. We need to stop applying our logic and our values to score
what Trump does and, instead, analyze what is behind what he does. Who is benefitting the
most from Trump's foreign and military policy? Who is benefitting from frayed relations with
NATO? In whose hands (seen or unseen) will Syria and Iraq be? If we do end up leaving Iraq,
will we do so with matters settled and in order for us and for the people of Iraq whom we've
let down? Does Trump care? Trump is repaying his debt to Putin while scoring points for more
electoral help and turning our attention away from his impeachment. When's the last time he's
tweeted about that. The departments of State and Defense will do as ordered. If Trump thinks
there are votes in vaporizing Persepolis, the military will carry out his orders no matter
what Esper says. Reply 22 Recommend Share
In retrospect, it's truly sad a young Donald Trump didn't get the stuffing beat out of him as
kid in elementary school or at the NY Military Academy. And that made me think of all those
supporters who relish the behavior of narcissist megalomaniac who has demonstrated absolutely
NO capacity to do the most important job in the nation, and world. The thug Donald Trump as a
youngster has morphed into the adult monster who is about to create chaos on an international
scale. If Republicans refuse to act because they cower from Trump's (empty) threats, it's
conceivable the world will unite and act against a delusional Imperial Monarch. The American
public doesn't have to wait for either option - imagine the consequences of massive peaceful
protests which shutdown Washington DC and major metropolitan areas. If Americans can
demonstrate their outrage and anger PLUS demand action by their elected officials in the
House and Senate, all of this madness will be over shortly. Truly, "We the People" have had
enough. Reply 21 Recommend Share
Nothing else needed to be added: "From his first days in office, Trump has acted on the
apparent belief that he could easily intimidate foreign governments -- that they would
quickly fold and allow themselves to be humiliated. That is, he imagined that he faced a
world of LINDSEY GRAHAMS, willing to abandon all dignity at the first hint of a
challenge."...Touché
The worst may be yet to come. Countries that consider Iran a a troublemaker and even an
adversary who rely upon affordable mid-East oil are unwilling to just watch the flow stop due
to conflict. Remember how quiet were the Saudis when their oil processing facilities were
attacked by Iranian proxies? Striking back would shut down oil exports for a long time. The
big European states are not supporting what we did and are attempting to convince Iran to
avoid going to war or setting loose it's proxies. The world is no longer relying upon the
U.S. for peace and leadership. Rather the world is trying to find a way to achieve a safe
distance from us. The U.S. is becoming the most powerful and wealthy country that nobody
trusts, anymore.
"Unlike with North Korea, it's difficult to imagine any photo op or exchange of love letters
defusing the crisis the president has created. " The only thing that might defuse this crisis
would be the Senate convicting Trump and removing him from office. It would be a good idea if
the House passes another article of impeachment accusing the president of committing an act
of war without Congressional authorization.
Threatening to destroy cultural sites of a country is the sign of a deranged madman. I can't
believe a US president would dare say something like that. It goes against all the principles
America stands for. Nothing will motivate the people of Iran to fight the US more than the
threat of destruction to their cultural sites. If we go to war with Iran, this is a
Republican war. They own it. When are decent Republicans going to stand up and do the right
thing? If they don't, this could be very, very, bad.
The Defense department is already walking back Trump's tweet about bombing Iran culture
sites. Unfortunately, it's too late because the damage to our reputation as the "shining
light on the hill" has already been destroyed. I'm afraid more than now than I have ever been
in my life. Who knows when or where the revenge will occur but I'm fairly certain it will
happen and we'll be more isolated than ever before. It's taken centuries to build goodwill
and our reputation as a beacon of democracy for the world. We gave the keys to the kingdom to
a false prophet and we'll pay for his indiscretions for the rest of my lifetime. God help us
all.
You've sure got it right with "rapture-mad", and the most frightening thing is that the
religious zealotry of Pompeo, Pence, Mulvaney and Barr, inoculates them against any
criticism, because they believe they are serving a "higher"power and any criticism is a
testimony to their faith. In fact, by turning themselves into martyrs, they get to advance in
line for the Rapture. It seems particularly ironic that Evangelicals who support Israel do so
because they see God's plan unfolding there. The Jews, just happen to be sacrificial lambs in
the grand scheme. so they must must be preserved until the time is ripe for their rightful
annihilation, heralding the Second Coming. So, the problem of Pompeo, et al, is not Iran
destroying Israel, it's just that they've determined the timing is off.
As for the "wag the dog" theory, sure, Trump sees no difference between his personal fortunes
and national interests. But worse, the impeachment rests upon evidence that points to a
personal criminality on an international scale, which is the landscape where we find
ourselves. The president pardons convicts like Gallagher and Arpaio because they are cruel or
bloodthirsty. He admires dictators and ignores the law whenever he can, both as a private
individual and a president, and has obstructed a legal investigation into his corruption.
Now, on the international stage, by bypassing Congress, he is ignoring the sovereignty of the
American people, while incoherently threatening war crimes. Trump is fully blossoming into a
man like those he admires, an unrestrained, unprincipled, heavy hitting international tyrant.
I'm so disgusted with those whose job it is to check this man, and have abdicated their
responsibility, because they want to be like him. Reply 230 Recommend Share
I was at a friend's house on election night ready to celebrate Clinton's victory. When the
networks suddenly announced that Trump had won Florida, a professor of international
relations who was with us ominously predicted, "we are going to war with Iran." And here we
are.
America has become a living nightmare. A global power perceived mostly as benevolent by the
world is now a danger to all, including itself. Already having killed the Paris Agreement,
and Iran Nuclear Treaty, not to mention walking away from a nuclear arms treaty with the
Russians, Trump is now ready to wreak real havoc on the world - start a war. Boy will they
forget about impeachment now!
We haven't authorized the assassination of a military leader since the daring mission to kill
Japanese Admiral Yamamoto in 1943. Although he'd been the architect of the Pearl Harbor
attack, and we were at war with Japan, this was a departure so significant that it only
proceeded after lengthy deliberation. And now, this. Your article fills in precisely how this
was so very much not that. But one party is in so cult-deep into this president now that the
lies won't stop. Thousands of Iranian have lost their lives in the past month trying to rid
themselves of this regime. Not only were those deaths rendered in vain by the assassination
of Suleimani, but the Iranian people are also even more yoked to a government they hate. And
wasn't the idea of grassroots-driven change in regime a core strategy behind pulling out of
the nuclear deal? And it's not okay because Suleimani is "evil." That's both subjective and
never a justification for an assassination of a foreign military leader of a nation we're not
at war with. As I noted, it was questionable when it was a military leader of nation we were
at war with. But, most important, what did we gain from this? Following yet another
disasterous military and foreign policy snap decision it only makes the importance of
removing Trump from office more urgent. Come for the Constitutional crime but convict because
the defendant is also manifestly unfit for the office. People are dying because of it and
more will die if he stays. Reply 186 Recommend Share
What, then, for an effective response? Outrage is mere fuel: what is the engine? A full year
seems too long. The Senate seems hopeless. What does that leave? Must we take to the streets
to stop this disaster of a president? All this time spent wondering how this will end makes
me feel like a victim of domestic abuse. What a waste. 1 Reply 180 Recommend Share
After three harrowing years, we've reached the point many of us feared from the moment
Donald Trump was elected. His decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's second most
important official, made at Mar-a-Lago with little discernible
deliberation , has brought the United States to the brink of a devastating new conflict in
the Middle East.
We don't yet know how Iran will retaliate, or whether all-out war will be averted. But
already, NATO has suspended its mission training Iraqi forces to
fight ISIS . Iraq's Parliament has voted to expel American troops -- a longtime Iranian
objective. (On Monday, U.S. forces sent a letter saying they were withdrawing from Iraq in
response, only to then claim that it was a
draft released in error .) On Sunday, Iran said it will no longer be bound by the remaining
restrictions on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal that
Trump abandoned in 2018. Trump has been threatening to commit war crimes by destroying Iran's
cultural sites and tried to use Twitter to notify
Congress of his intention to respond to any Iranian reprisals with military escalation.
The administration has said that the killing of Suleimani was justified by an imminent
threat to American lives, but there is no reason to believe this. One skeptical American
official told The New York Times that the new intelligence indicated nothing but
"a normal Monday in the Middle East," and Democrats briefed on it were
unconvinced by the administration's case. The Washington Post reported that Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo -- who last year agreed with a Christian Broadcasting
Network interviewer that God might have sent Trump to save Israel from the "Iranian menace"
-- has been pushing for a hit on Suleimani for months.
Rather than self-defense, the Suleimani killing seems like the dreadful result of several
intersecting dynamics. There's the influence of rapture-mad Iran hawks like Pompeo and Vice
President Mike Pence. Defense officials who might have stood up to Trump have all left the
administration. According to Peter Bergen's book "Trump and His Generals," James Mattis,
Trump's former secretary of defense, instructed his subordinates not to provide the president
with options for a military showdown with Iran. But with Mattis gone, military officials, The
Times reported, presented Trump with the possibility of killing Suleimani as the "most extreme"
option on a menu of choices, and were "flabbergasted" when he picked it.
Trump likely had mixed motives. He was reportedly upset over TV images of militia supporters
storming the American Embassy in Iraq. According to The Post, he also was frustrated by
"negative coverage" of his decision last year to order and then call off strikes on Iran.
Beyond that, Trump, now impeached and facing trial in the Senate, has laid out his rationale
over years of tweets. The president is a master of projection, and his accusations against
others are a decent guide to howhe
himself will behave . He told us,
over and over again , that he believed Barack Obama would start a war with Iran to "save
face" and because his "poll numbers are in a tailspin" and he needed to "get re-elected." To
Trump, a wag-the-dog war with Iran evidently seemed like a natural move for a president in
trouble.
... ... ...
Even if Iran were to somehow decide not to strike back at the United States, it's still
ramping up its nuclear program, and Trump has obliterated the possibility of a return to
negotiations. "His maximum pressure policy has failed," Nasr said of Trump. "He has only
produced a more dangerous Iran."
... ... ... Michelle Goldberg has been an Opinion columnist since 2017. She is the
author of several books about politics, religion and women's rights, and was part of a team
that won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 for reporting on workplace sexual
harassment issues. @michelleinbklyn
...The former reality-TV star has long been ignorant of world history and current events.
During a 2015 interview ,
then-candidate Trump did not even know who Maj. Gen.
Qasem Soleimani was. After prompting, Trump mistakenly identified the Iranian general as a
Kurdish commander. Once Trump's ignorance was revealed, the frustrated candidate weakly
attacked the interviewer for "throwing around names of people and where they live."
The danger posed by that ignorance is matched daily by the crises created by Trump's own
erraticism. His performance as commander in chief has been shaped by a collection of scattered
grievances, emotional impulses and random tweets. As the Financial Times's Philip Stephens
has
said of Trump's foreign policy, "Looking for a framework is like searching for symmetrical
patterns in a bowl of spaghetti."
This is, after all, a president who spent last summer withholding military aid from a
besieged democratic ally while pressuring its leaders to investigate a political opponent.
Then, stepping in front of a bank
of White House cameras , he asked the same of China. Trump also declared himself "
The Chosen One " while embracing the title of "King of Israel," ordered American companies
to leave China , manipulated U.S. markets by lying about phone calls with leaders of that
same country and canceled
bilateral meetings with a NATO leader because she refused to sell Greenland.
Trump's increasingly erratic behavior received much attention at the time, with the
Associated Press's Jonathan Lemire and Zeke Miller noting in
July that the United States' foreign policy had become unmoored after Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and others were driven from the
administration. Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of the Atlantic, followed with an article
appropriately titled " He's Getting
Worse ," in which he glumly noted that "there is no reason to hope that he will reform. His
followers reward his radicalism and his handlers are among the most cynical figures in American
political history."
We now find ourselves living through a time when those same administration officials are
providing reckless counsel to an ignorant and erratic president. Though he shares MacArthur's
sense of infallibility, Trump spends most of his waking hours showing the world just how
fallible he is. Critics have long warned of a time when this fatally flawed man would be forced
to confront an international crisis.
That time has arrived and it is a crisis of Trump's own making.
Soleimani was a malevolent force on the world stage. But so, too, is Kim Jong Un. Will the
North Korean dictator be next on the president's kill list? What of Syria's Bashar al-Assad? He
is responsible for more deaths than any Arab leader since Saddam Hussein . And what stabilizing
impact did the Iraqi tyrant's death have on the region?
Contrary to the vows of candidate Trump, it is likely that the killing of Soleimani will now
only deepen U.S. involvement in a region that has already claimed too many American lives. With
Russia firmly ensconced in Syria, Iraqi discontent on the rise and Iran's nuclear program
restarted, expect more Americans to die across the Middle East in the coming years. With his
audacious attack, Trump has further isolated the United States from its allies, provided a
lifeline to Iran's terrorist regime and broken yet another of his campaign promises.
"... Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. ..."
"... As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example: ..."
"... Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and actions of Muqtada al-Sadr. ..."
"... Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was. ..."
Before discussing what happens next and the big picture implications, it's worth pointing
out the incredible number of blatant lies and overall clownishness that emerged from U.S.
officials in the assassination's aftermath. It started with
claims from Trump that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans and was caught
in the act. Mass media did its job and uncritically parroted this line, which was quickly
exposed as a complete falsehood.
CNN anchor uncritically repeating government lies.
This is what mass media does to get wars going. https://t.co/QK1JET7TIj
It's incredibly telling that CNN would swallow this fact-free claim with total credulity
within weeks of discovering the extent of the lies told about
Syrian chemical attacks and
the Afghanistan war . Meanwhile, when a reporter asked a state department official for some
clarification on what sorts of attacks were imminent, this is what transpired.
When asked by a reporter for details about what kinds of imminent attacks Soleimani was
planning, the State Dept. responds with:
"Jesus, do we have to explain why we do these things?"
Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as
part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to
Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth
get in the way of a good story.
Iraqi Prime Minister AbdulMahdi accuses Trump of deceiving him in order to assassinate
Suleimani. Trump, according to P.M. lied about wanting a diplomatic solution in order to get
Suleimani on a plane to Baghdad in the open, where he was summarily executed. https://t.co/HKjyQqXNqP
As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who
genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example:
Pompeo on CNN says US has "every expectation" that people "in Iran will view the American
action last night as giving them freedom."
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Qassem Soleimani's daughter Zeinab were
among the hundreds of thousands mourning Soleimani in Tehran today. Iranian state TV put the
crowd size at 'millions,' though that number could not be verified. https://t.co/R6EbKh6Gow
Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future
role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important
things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a
resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and
actions of Muqtada al-Sadr.
WOW,
Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr orders the return of "Mahdi Army" in response the
American strike that killed Suleimani.
Mahdi Army fought against the US troops during the invasion in 2003. Sadr disbanded the
group in 2008.
Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been
a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either
country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him
to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more
dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was.
Going forward, Iran's response will be influenced to a great degree by what's already
transpired. There are three things worth noting. First, although many Trump supporters are
cheering the assassination, Americans are certainly
nowhere near united on this , with many including myself viewing it as a gigantic strategic
blunder. Second, it ratcheted up anti-American sentiment in Iraq to a huge degree without Iran
having to do anything, as highlighted above. Third, hardliners within Iran have been given an
enormous gift. With one drone strike, the situation went from grumblings and protests on the
ground to a scene where any sort of dissent in the air has been extinguished for the time
being.
Exactly right, which is why Iran will go more hardline if anything and more united.
If China admitted to taking out Trump even Maddow wouldn't cheer. https://t.co/zqaEDIoWH1
Iranian leadership will see these developments as important victories in their own right and
will likely craft a response taking stock of this much improved position. This means a total
focus on making the experience of American troops in the region untenable, which will be far
easier to achieve now.
If that's right, you can expect less shock and awe in the near-term, and more consolidation
of the various parties that were on the fence but have since shifted to a more anti-American
stance following Soleimani's death. Iran will start with the easy pickings, which consists of
consolidating its stronger position in Iraq and making dissidents feel shameful at home. That
said, Iran will have to publicly respond with some sort of a counterattack, but that event will
be carefully considered with Iran's primary objective in mind -- getting U.S. troops out of the
region.
This means no attacks on U.S. or European soil, and no attacks targeting civilians either.
Such a move would be as strategically counterproductive as Assad gassing Syrian cities after he
was winning the war (which is why many of us doubted the narrative) since it would merely
inflame American public opinion and give an excuse to attack Iran in Iran. There is no way
Iranian leadership is that stupid, so any such attack must be treated with the utmost
skepticism.
President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate
Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani last week because he was planning "Imminent attacks" on US citizens.
I don't believe them.
Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about
Iran for the past three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the
phony justification to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming
Iran for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a steady stream of
lies for three years because they are obsessed with Iran.
And before Trump's obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied
ceaselessly to bring about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the
list goes on.
At some point, when we've been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a
"threat" that we must "take out" with a military attack, there comes a time where we must
assume they are lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have
provided nothing. So I don't believe them.
President Trump has warned that his administration has already targeted 52 sites important
to Iran and Iranian culture and the US will attack them if Iran retaliates for the
assassination of Gen. Soleimani. Because Iran has no capacity to attack the United States,
Iran's retaliation if it comes will likely come against US troops or US government officials
stationed or visiting the Middle East. I have a very easy solution for President Trump that
will save the lives of American servicemembers and other US officials: just come home. There is
absolutely no reason for US troops to be stationed throughout the Middle East to face increased
risk of death for nothing.
In our Ron Paul Liberty Report program last week we observed that the US attack on a senior
Iranian military officer on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraq government
– would serve to finally unite the Iraqi factions against the United States. And so it
has: on Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops from Iraqi soil. It may have been
a non-binding resolution, but there is no mistaking the sentiment. US troops are not wanted and
they are increasingly in danger. So why not listen to the Iraqi parliament?
Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression
– and let the people of the Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong
defense to protect the United States, but end this neocon pipe-dream of ruling the world from
the barrel of a gun. It does not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable to attack. It
makes the elites of Washington rich while leaving working and middle class America with the
bill. It engenders hatred and a desire for revenge among those who have fallen victim to US
interventionist foreign policy. And it results in millions of innocents being killed
overseas.
There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy
brings only bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that
for America's sake we demand the return of US troops from the Middle East! (Republished from
The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
"Unlike with North Korea, it's difficult to imagine any photo op or exchange of love letters
defusing the crisis the president has created. " The only thing that might defuse this crisis
would be the Senate convicting Trump and removing him from office. It would be a good idea if
the House passes another article of impeachment accusing the president of committing an act
of war without Congressional authorization.
Threatening to destroy cultural sites of a country is the sign of a deranged madman. I can't
believe a US president would dare say something like that. It goes against all the principles
America stands for. Nothing will motivate the people of Iran to fight the US more than the
threat of destruction to their cultural sites. If we go to war with Iran, this is a
Republican war. They own it. When are decent Republicans going to stand up and do the right
thing? If they don't, this could be very, very, bad.
The Defense department is already walking back Trump's tweet about bombing Iran culture
sites. Unfortunately, it's too late because the damage to our reputation as the "shining
light on the hill" has already been destroyed. I'm afraid more than now than I have ever been
in my life. Who knows when or where the revenge will occur but I'm fairly certain it will
happen and we'll be more isolated than ever before. It's taken centuries to build goodwill
and our reputation as a beacon of democracy for the world. We gave the keys to the kingdom to
a false prophet and we'll pay for his indiscretions for the rest of my lifetime. God help us
all.
After three harrowing years, we've reached the point many of us feared from the moment
Donald Trump was elected. His decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's second most
important official, made at Mar-a-Lago with little discernible
deliberation , has brought the United States to the brink of a devastating new conflict in
the Middle East.
We don't yet know how Iran will retaliate, or whether all-out war will be averted. But
already, NATO has suspended its mission training Iraqi forces to
fight ISIS . Iraq's Parliament has voted to expel American troops -- a longtime Iranian
objective. (On Monday, U.S. forces sent a letter saying they were withdrawing from Iraq in
response, only to then claim that it was a
draft released in error .) On Sunday, Iran said it will no longer be bound by the remaining
restrictions on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal that
Trump abandoned in 2018. Trump has been threatening to commit war crimes by destroying Iran's
cultural sites and tried to use Twitter to notify
Congress of his intention to respond to any Iranian reprisals with military escalation.
The administration has said that the killing of Suleimani was justified by an imminent
threat to American lives, but there is no reason to believe this. One skeptical American
official told The New York Times that the new intelligence indicated nothing but
"a normal Monday in the Middle East," and Democrats briefed on it were
unconvinced by the administration's case. The Washington Post reported that Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo -- who last year agreed with a Christian Broadcasting
Network interviewer that God might have sent Trump to save Israel from the "Iranian menace"
-- has been pushing for a hit on Suleimani for months.
Because he's just a bully with delusions of grandeur.
International crises often lead, at least initially, to surging support for a country's
leadership. And that's clearly happening now. Just weeks ago the nation's leader faced public
discontent so intense that his grip on power seemed at risk. Now the assassination of Qassim
Suleimani has transformed the situation, generating a wave of patriotism that has greatly
bolstered the people in charge.
Unfortunately, this patriotic rallying around the flag is happening not in America, where
many are (with good reason) deeply suspicious of Donald Trump's motives, but in Iran
.
In other words, Trump's latest attempt to bully another country has backfired -- just like
all his previous attempts.
From his first days in office, Trump has acted on the apparent belief that he could easily
intimidate foreign governments -- that they would quickly fold and allow themselves to be
humiliated. That is, he imagined that he faced a world of Lindsey Grahams, willing to abandon
all dignity at the first hint of a challenge.
But this strategy keeps failing; the regimes he threatens are strengthened rather than
weakened, and Trump is the one who ends up making humiliating concessions. Paul Krugman's
Newsletter Get a better understanding of the economy -- and an even deeper look at what's on
Paul's mind.
Sign up here.
Remember, for example, when Trump promised "
fire and fury " unless North Korea halted its nuclear weapons program? He claimed triumph
after a 2018 summit meeting with Kim Jong-un, North Korea's leader. But Kim made no real
concessions, and North Korea recently announced that it might resume
tests of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.
Or consider the trade war with China, which was supposed to bring the Chinese to their
knees. A deal has supposedly been reached, although details remain scarce; what's clear is that
it falls far short of U.S. aims, and that Chinese officials are jubilant about their
success in facing Trump down.
Why does Trump's international strategy, which might be described as winning through
intimidation, keep failing? And why does he keep pursuing it anyway?
One answer, I suspect, is that like all too many Americans, Trump has a hard time grasping
the fact that other countries are real -- that is, that we're not the only country whose
citizens would rather pay a heavy price, in money and even in blood, than make what they see as
humiliating concessions.
Ask yourself, how would Americans have reacted if a foreign power had assassinated Dick
Cheney, claiming that he had the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on his hands? Don't
answer that Suleimani was worse. That's beside the point. The point is that we don't accept the
right of foreign governments to kill our officials. Why imagine that other countries are
different?
Of course, we have many people in the diplomatic corps with a deep knowledge of other
nations and their motivations, who understand the limits of intimidation. But anyone with that
kind of understanding has been excluded from Trump's inner circle.
Now, it's true that for many years America did have a special leadership position, one that
sometimes involved playing a role in reshaping other countries' political systems. But here's
where Trump's second error comes in: He has never shown any sign of understanding why
America used to be special.
Part of the explanation, of course, was raw economic and military power: America used to be
just much bigger than everyone else. That is, however, no longer true. For example, by some key
measures China's economy is significantly
bigger than that of the United States.
Even more important, however, was the fact that America was something more than a big
country throwing its weight around. We always stood for something larger.
Oh, and because we were committed to enforcing rules, we were also relatively trustworthy;
an alliance with America was meaningful, because we weren't the kind of country that would
betray an ally for the sake of short-term political convenience.
Trump, however, has turned his back on everything that used to make America great. Under his
leadership, we've become nothing more than a big, self-interested bully -- a bully with
delusions of grandeur, who isn't nearly as tough as he thinks. We abruptly abandon allies like
the Kurds; we honor war
criminals ; we slap punitive tariffs on friendly nations like Canada for no good reason.
And, of course, after more than
15,000 lies , nothing our leader and his minions say can be trusted.
Trump officials seem taken aback by the uniformly negative consequences of the Suleimani
killing: The Iranian regime is empowered, Iraq has turned hostile and nobody has stepped up in
our support. But that's what happens when you betray all your friends and squander all your
credibility.
MASTER OF UNIVE American corporations will start falling into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Q1 if
the USA MIC cannot find new contracts to profit from via kinetic war. The USA's last war was
Iraq post-911 and the USA MIC made good money & profit from that war. Without forever wars
the USA Ponzi Corporatocracy will deflate. If the USA Ponzi Corporatocracy deflates due to
recession it means the end of USA Imperialism.
If the hawks can generate forever wars the MIC suppliers may have a chance to stay in business,
but if they don't get new contracts for new forever wars they all know implicitly that that is
a Zero Sum game for the entire USA population.
BIG Chief Trump little penis has only one chance to stay in power at this juncture. He has
ordered troupes to Iraq and approximately 2000 marines are on the way right now. In brief, 2000
marines were not ordered to Iraq to escort the base troupes out of Iraq safely. They were sent
on a mission.
Impeachment, DOW Share Price, and no Trade Deal with China will put Trump on the defensive
and he will start threatening everyone in the world if he does not get his way.
Trump is the kind of child leader that will throw temper tantrums in front of the world.
Temper tantrums worked with his parents, and the Real Estate community in New York shitty.
Trump is a child of roughly 6 or 7 mentally & socially. Id impulses are running the
world here and when id impulses run the world from the White House we are certain that whatever
manifests will be destructive beyond imagination for most adults in the world.
Children with anger management issues & rage issues will understand Trump best.
The three most important things for doing battle are logistics, logistics and logistics, and
as Pat lang explains, the US forces in Syria are essentially fucked:
We have around 5,500 people there now spread across the country in little groups engaged in
logistics, intelligence and training missions. They are extremely vulnerable. There are
something like 150 marines in the embassy. There are also a small number of US combat
forces in Syria east and north of the Euphrates river. These include a battalion of US Army
National Guard mechanized troops "guarding" Syria's oil from Syria's own army and whatever
devilment the Iranians might be able to arrange.
4. This is an untenable logistical situation. Supply and other functions require a major
airfield close to Baghdad. We have Balad airbase and helicopter supply and air support from
there into Baghdad is possible from there but may become hazardous. Iraq is a big country.
It is a long and lonely drive from Kuwait for re-supply from there or evacuation through
there. The same thing is true of the desert route to Jordan.
Unless it reinvades and reoccupies, the United States will be gone from Syria,
probably just after the election in November so Trump can say he stood up to the Iraqis.
Trump is probably not stupid enough to launch such a war and certainly not during an
election year.
During his campaign Trump said he wanted the U.S. military out of the Middle East. Iran
and its allies will help him to keep that promise.
Hasnt Trump proved he is stupid enough by now? How much more evidence is needed to drop
him? Trump start wars to get another election win, I think that is obvious? And allies
keeping him back? Which allieshave even remotely criticized his threats and murder? People
need to realize that there is nothing stopping Trump, he and Israel will keep bombing and
unfortunately its not much Iran could do.
Dan: The guy fought the Talibans and ISIS, and has always been opposed to them; that's good
enough for me, and that's definitely more than any of the coward and treacherous Western
leaders that pussy-foot instead of calling out the US for what tantamounts to a declaration
of war on both Iraq and Iran.
As for trying to put the blame on Pentagon staffers, even if they chose such weird
options for Trump to choose, at the end of the day, it's the President himself who chose - as
another one said decades ago, "the buck stops here" and the guy in the Oval Office has to
bear the full responsibility.
Col. Lang is once again warning that Trump trying to keep the troops in Iraq would be a
terrible mistake with bad consequences, and that it's just not realistic. He probably prefers
not to say it that way when stating it's a long road from Kuwait to Baghdad, but if shit hits
the fan and Iraqis decide to go after the US troops, then those who can't evacuate fast
enough will end up in a position similar to that of the British in Kabul, in the very first
days of 1842.
Aghast at your words, dan. I am an aging homemaker from usa midwest and I have yet to stop
weeping for Qassem Soleimani, his poor widow, and the rest of his family. I feel I owe him a
personal debt for fighting zionists/terrorists/imperialists, for if they are not defeated
once and for all, my captive government will continue in perpetuity to serve their
horridmurderousthieving agenda, enslaving my every descendent and robbing humanity of any
chance for peace on this pretty garden harbor planet. May justice be done to give peace a
chance.
Daniel
Larison Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer
report on the Trump administration's decision to refuse a visa to Iran's foreign minister.
Barring Zarif from the U.S. is a blatant violation of U.S. obligations as the host of U.N.
headquarters:
"Any foreign minister is entitled to address the Security Council at any time and the
United States is obligated to provide access to the U.N. headquarters district," said Larry
Johnson, a former U.N. assistant secretary-general. Under the terms of the U.S. agreement
with the United Nations, "they are absolutely obligated to let him in."
Johnson, who currently serves as an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School,
noted that the U.S. Congress, however, passed legislation in August 1947, the so-called
Public Law 80-357, that granted the U.S. government the authority to bar foreign individuals
invited by the United Nations to attend meetings at its New York City headquarters if they
are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security. But Johnson said the U.S. law would
require the individual be "expected to commit some act against the U.S. national security
interest while here in the United States."
Refusing to admit Zarif is another foolish mistake on the administration's part. Preventing
him from coming to the U.N. not only breaches our government's agreement with the U.N., but it
also closes off a possible channel of communication and demonstrates to the world that the U.S.
has no interest in a diplomatic resolution of the current crisis. Far from conveying the
"toughness" that Pompeo imagines he is showing, keeping Zarif out reeks of weakness and
insecurity. Zarif is a capable diplomat, but is the Trump administration really so afraid of
what he would say while he is here that they would ignore U.S. obligations to block him?
By barring Zarif, the Trump administration has given him and his government another
opportunity to score an easy propaganda win. They have squandered an opportunity to reduce
tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. needs to find an off-ramp to avoid further
conflict following the president's assassination order, but thanks to Pompeo's decision that
off-ramp won't be found in New York.
@ Hal Duell 23
"But can we please stop underestimating him? He has straddled the world for four years now.
His only peers are Putin and Xi."
"Straddled the world", you say? Beshitting the world with toxic narcissism is the truth.
Trump is using US power to advance his own brand, his cult of personality and pursuit of
emoluments. World leaders cringe when he is among them. He has intensified conflict with Iran
by refusing to honor a hard won treaty that promised to stabilize relations in the region,
just as he has rebuked nuclear arms agreements with Russia, and created unnecessary conflict
with China. This unilateral scofflaw approach to international relations is extremely
dangerous. Trump is a bully and a fool. When he claims the fat North Korean dictator "likes
him", he broadcasts what a dope he really is. He has no vision for the future other than the
failed free market, small government Koch Brothers claptrap preached by the extreme right
since Calvin Coolidge.
And you admire this man and think he measures up to a Xi or Putin? Trump is a coward and a
bully and his supporters confuse his mindless aggression with strength as they pretend he's
playing 3 or 4 dimensional chess when what he's really doing is playing them for the chumps
they are. It won't be long now before you seriously regret any positive opinion to have had
of this "world straddling" horse's ass.
"... This character development and ad-libbing/a b testing is then always in use when dealing with the media and when tweeting. Since the President is a caricature his followers aren't bothered by his incorrect statements and when the Democrats/media point out his mis-statements it doesn't register because everyone knows wrestling is fake. A rhetorical analysis of Trump's letter shows that he will be a formidable opponent in 2020, and that he's crazy like a fox. Make America Great Again. Trump trademarked that saying 1 week after the 2012 election. He isn't crazy he's sly like a fox. ..."
"... I hear you, Chuck. I'm of the same generation and vaguely remember Ike. I recall, in particular, the U2 incident. Didn't Eisenhower himself deny to the world that the US did spy flights, even while the Soviets were displaying wreckage and parading Capt. F. G. Powers? It was a major embarrassment. ..."
Lambert describes President Trump's style as schtick but another way is to consider it as
a wrestling character named "President Trump." Remember President Trump was involved with the
WWE and had the owners wife Linda McMahon in his cabinet and she is now running a pro-Trump
super PAC.
Having grown up watching professional wrestling President Trump's campaign rallies are
exactly like a wrestling show. He is playing a character and has to be quick thinking and
able to ad-lib to manipulate the crowd's emotions. The crowd also has to become part of the
show as well and overreact to signal to the performer (in this case who happens to be the
President) they are engaged with the show. The baby face (Trump) is cheered loudly and the
heels (Democrats/media) are booed in an exaggerated manner.
This character development and ad-libbing/a b testing is then always in use when
dealing with the media and when tweeting. Since the President is a caricature his followers
aren't bothered by his incorrect statements and when the Democrats/media point out his
mis-statements it doesn't register because everyone knows wrestling is fake.
A rhetorical analysis of Trump's letter shows that he will be a formidable opponent in
2020, and that he's crazy like a fox.
Make America Great Again. Trump trademarked that saying 1 week after the 2012 election.
He isn't crazy he's sly like a fox.
I've been around for a while and my attitude is that all of these "prexies", with the
exception maybe of Ike, have been lying sacks of shit. Now while they all facilitated mass
thievery by their friends and associates (as the mob would say), they could have at least had
the good form to be funny. But no! They were all so earnest and sanctimonious. Kind of like
my parish priest handing out the wafers.
I probably spent way too many hours warming various bar-stools next to a variety of
knuckleheads, so I'm going to give Trump his due, OK? The guy has given me more chuckles,
laughs, guffaws and all around hilarity than six decades worth of well dressed socio-paths.
And as a bonus, a big bonus, he has greatly discomforted all of the smartest grifters in the
room. Whenever I see the guy, Im in the Catskills.
> all of these "prexies", with the exception maybe of Ike, have been lying sacks of
shit.
I hear you, Chuck. I'm of the same generation and vaguely remember Ike. I recall, in
particular, the U2 incident. Didn't Eisenhower himself deny to the world that the US did spy
flights, even while the Soviets were displaying wreckage and parading Capt. F. G. Powers? It
was a major embarrassment.
"... Trump's performance record as president is comprised of an unbroken string of broken promises, opportunities squandered, principles violated, and intentions abandoned. ..."
"... despite another supposedly positive personal relationship, the Trump administration has applied more sanctions on Moscow, provided more anti-Russian aid to Ukraine, further increased funds and troops to NATO Europe, and sent home more Russian diplomats than the Obama administration. ..."
"... Worse, Washington has made no serious effort to resolve the standoff over Ukraine. No one imagines Moscow returning Crimea to Ukraine or giving in on any other issue without meaningful concessions regarding Kiev. Instead of moderating and minimizing bilateral frictions, the administration has made Russia more likely today than before to cooperate with China against Washington and contest American objectives in the Middle East, Africa, and even Latin America. ..."
"... Although Trump promised to stop America's endless wars, as many - if not more - U.S. military personnel are abroad today as when he took office. He increased the number of troops in Afghanistan and is now seeking to negotiate an exit that would force Washington to remain to enforce the agreement. This war has been burning for more than eighteen years. ..."
"... The administration has maintained Washington's illegal deployment in Syria, shifting one contingent away from the Turkish-Kurdish battle while inserting new forces to confiscate Syrian oil fields-a move that lacks domestic authority and violates international law. A few hundred Americans cannot achieve their many other supposed objectives, such as eliminating Russian, Iranian, and other malign influences and forcing Syria's President Bashar al-Assad to resign or inaugurate democracy. However, their presence will ensure America's continued entanglement in a conflict of great complexity but minimal security interest. ..."
"... This is an extraordinarily bad record after almost three years in office. Something good still might happen between now and November 3, 2020. However, more issues are likely to get worse. Imagine North Korean missile and nuclear tests, renewed Russian attempts to influence Western elections, a bloody Chinese crackdown in Hong Kong, increased U.S.-European trade friction, more U.S. pressure on Iran matched by asymmetric responses, and more. At the moment, there is no reason to believe any of the resulting confrontations would turn out well. ..."
Trump's performance record as president is comprised of an unbroken string of broken promises, opportunities squandered, principles
violated, and intentions abandoned.
North Korea may have been the one issue on which President Donald Trump apparently listened to his predecessor, Barack Obama,
when he warned about the serious challenge facing the incoming occupant of the Oval Office. Nevertheless, Trump initially drove tensions
between the two countries to a fever pitch, raising fears of war in the midst of proclamations of "fire and fury." Then he played
statesman and turned toward diplomacy, meeting North Korea's supreme leader, Kim Jong-un, in Singapore.
Today that effort looks kaput. The North has declared denuclearization to be off the table. Actually, few people other than the
president apparently believed that Kim was prepared to turn over his nuclear weapons to a government predisposed toward intervention
and regime change.
Now that this Trump policy is formally dead, and there is no Plan B in sight, Pyongyang has begun deploying choice terms from
its fabled thesaurus of insults. Democrats are sure to denounce the administration for incompetent naivete. And the bipartisan war
party soon will be beating the drums for more sanctions, more florid rhetoric, additional military deployments, new plans for war.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) already has dismissed the risks since any conflict would be "over there," on the distant Korean Peninsula.
At which point Trump's heroic summitry, which offered a dramatic opportunity to break decades of deadly stalemate, will be judged
a failure.
If the president had racked up several successes-wars ended, peace achieved, disputes settled, relations strengthened-then one
disappointment wouldn't matter much. However, his record is an unbroken string of broken promises, opportunities squandered, principles
violated, and intentions abandoned.
There is no relationship more important than that between the United States and the People's Republic of China. Despite Trump's
supposed friendship with China's Xi Jinping, the trade war rages to the detriment of both countries. Americans have suffered from
both the president's tariffs and China's retaliation, with no end in sight. Despite hopes for a resolution, Beijing is hanging tough
and obviously doubts the president's toughness, given the rapidly approaching election.
Beyond economics, the relationship is deteriorating sharply. Disagreements and confrontations over everything from geopolitics
to human rights have driven the two countries apart, with the administration lacking any effective strategy to positively influence
China's behavior. The president's myopic focus on trade has left him without a coherent strategy elsewhere.
Perhaps the president's most pronounced and controversial promise of the 2016 campaign was to improve relations with Russia. However,
despite another supposedly positive personal relationship, the Trump administration has applied more sanctions on Moscow, provided
more anti-Russian aid to Ukraine, further increased funds and troops to NATO Europe, and sent home more Russian diplomats than the
Obama administration.
Worse, Washington has made no serious effort to resolve the standoff over Ukraine. No one imagines Moscow returning Crimea to
Ukraine or giving in on any other issue without meaningful concessions regarding Kiev. Instead of moderating and minimizing bilateral
frictions, the administration has made Russia more likely today than before to cooperate with China against Washington and contest
American objectives in the Middle East, Africa, and even Latin America.
Although Trump promised to stop America's endless wars, as many - if not more - U.S. military personnel are abroad today as when he
took office. He increased the number of troops in Afghanistan and is now seeking to negotiate an exit that would force Washington
to remain to enforce the agreement. This war has been burning for more than eighteen years.
The administration has maintained Washington's illegal deployment in Syria, shifting one contingent away from the Turkish-Kurdish
battle while inserting new forces to confiscate Syrian oil fields-a move that lacks domestic authority and violates international
law. A few hundred Americans cannot achieve their many other supposed objectives, such as eliminating Russian, Iranian, and other
malign influences and forcing Syria's President Bashar al-Assad to resign or inaugurate democracy. However, their presence will ensure
America's continued entanglement in a conflict of great complexity but minimal security interest.
The Saudi government remains corrupt, incompetent, repressive, reckless and dependent on the United States. Only Washington's
refusal to retaliate against Iran for its presumed attack on Saudi oil facilities caused Riyadh to turn to diplomacy toward Tehran,
yet the president then increased U.S. military deployments, turning American military personnel into bodyguards for the Saudi royals.
The recent terrorist attack by the pilot-in-training-presumably to join his colleagues in slaughtering Yemeni civilians-added to
the already high cost of the bilateral relationship.
The administration's policy of "maximum pressure" has proved to be a complete bust around the world. As noted earlier, North Korea
proved unwilling to disarm despite the increased financial pressure caused by U.S. sanctions. North Koreans are hurting, but their
government, like Washington, places security first.
Russia, too, is no more willing to yield Crimea, which was once part of Russia and is the Black Sea naval base of Sebastopol.
Several European governments also disagree with the United States, having pressed to lighten or eliminate current sanctions. The
West will have to offer more than the status quo to roll back Moscow's military advances.
Before Trump became president, Iran was well contained, despite its malign regional activities. The Islamic regime was hemmed
in by Israel and the Gulf States, backed by nations as diverse as Egypt and America. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA,
sharply curtailed Iran's nuclear activities and placed the country under an intensive oversight regime. Now Tehran has reactivated
its nuclear program, expanded its regional interventions, interfered with Gulf shipping, and demonstrated its ability to devastate
Saudi oil production. To America's consternation, its Persian Gulf allies now are more willing to deal with Iran than before.
Additionally, the Trump administration has largely destroyed hope for reform in Cuba by reversing the Obama administration's progress
toward normalizing relations and discouraging visits by-and trade with-Americans. The entrepreneurs I spoke to when I visited Cuba
two years ago made large investments in anticipation of a steadily increasing number of U.S. visitors but were devastated when Washington
shut off the flow. What had been a steadily expanding private sector was knocked back and the regime, with Raoul Castro still dominant
behind the scenes, again can blame America for its own failings. There is no evidence that extending the original embargo and additional
sanctions, which began in 1960, will free anyone.
For a time, Venezuela appeared to be an administration priority. As usual, Trump applied economic sanctions, this time on a people
whose economy essentially had collapsed. Washington threatened more sanctions and military invasion but to no avail. Then the president
and his top aides breathed fire and fury, insisting that both China and Russia stay out, again without success. Eventually, the president
appeared to simply lose interest and drop any mention of the once urgent crisis. The corrupt, repressive Maduro regime remains in
power.
So far, the president's criticisms of America's alliances have gone for naught. Until now, his appointees, all well-disposed toward
maintaining generous subsidies for America's international fan club, have implemented his policies. More recently, the administration
demanded substantial increases in "host nation" support, but in almost every negotiation so far the president has given way, accepting
minor, symbolic gains. He is likely to end up like his predecessor, whining a lot but gaining very little from America's security
dependents.
Beyond that, there is little positive to say. Trump and India's Narendra Modi are much alike, which is no compliment to either,
but institutional relations have changed little. Turkey's incipient dictator, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, receives a free pass from the
president for the former's abuses and crimes. But even so Congress is thoroughly arrayed against Ankara for sins both domestic and
foreign.
The president's aversion to genuine free trade and the curious belief that buying inexpensive, quality products from abroad is
a negative has created problems with many close allies, including Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and multiple European
states. Perhaps only with Israel are Washington's relations substantially improved, and that reflects the president's abandonment
of any serious attempt to promote a fair and realistic peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
This is an extraordinarily bad record after almost three years in office. Something good still might happen between now and November
3, 2020. However, more issues are likely to get worse. Imagine North Korean missile and nuclear tests, renewed Russian attempts to
influence Western elections, a bloody Chinese crackdown in Hong Kong, increased U.S.-European trade friction, more U.S. pressure
on Iran matched by asymmetric responses, and more. At the moment, there is no reason to believe any of the resulting confrontations
would turn out well.
Most Americans vote on the economy, and the president is currently riding a wave of job creation. If that ends before the November
vote, then international issues might matter more. If so, then the president may regret that he failed to follow through on his criticism
of endless war and irresponsible allies. Despite his very different persona, his results don't look all that different from those
achieved by Barack Obama and other leading Democrats.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and the
author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
rshimizu12 • 15 hours ago
Personally I think Trumps foreign policy has had mix results. Part of the problem is that Trump has adopted a ad hoc foreign policy
tactics. The US has had limited success with North Korea. While we have not seen any reductions of nuclear weapons. He probably
has stopped flight testing of ICBM's. The daily back and forth threats of destroying each other countries have stopped. We should
have been making more progress with N Korea, but Trump has not been firm enough. Russia on the other hand is a much tougher country
to deal with. As for China we will have to keep up the pressure in trade negotiations.
All pretense of our country being a representative democracy@snoopydawg
is gone. Our two party uniparty government has completely turned its back on serving
the needs of the vast majority of the people of this country, and of the wider world. Profit
sits at the head of our government. The monikers "Fascist" and "Totalitarian" are apt
descriptors of the direction of our current trajectory. A dystopian future surely awaits us on
this beautiful, fragile and life sustaining planet that we are trashing with such abandon.
Other than that, things are going quite nicely. Nancy is wearing her power pants and fools
are applauding.
It still amazes me... that people actually think impeachment accomplishes anything other
than diverting attention from the Dems giving Trump everything he wants.
Kayfabe.
Impeachment without conviction means next to nothing.
The Senate will not convict. Trumps chances of being re-elected are continuing to improve as
Democratic Party insiders work overtime to see to it that Bernie Sanders has to fight the
Republican Party, a MSM that either dismisses or ignores his candidacy, AND the Democratic
Party which has, once again, stacked the deck against him.
... Never-Trump conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin released a scorching
assessment ... "Even Trump knows he will be lumped in with the 'losers' in the presidential
history rankings such as Richard Nixon and Andrew Johnson," wrote Rubin. "Impeachment will
define his presidency, dwarfing any other foreign or domestic action. No wonder he rages
against a speaker he is powerless to stop. His worst nightmare is to be humiliated, and if
not now, history certainly will regard him as a pitiful, damaged man utterly unfit for the
role he won through a series of improbable events ... Just as Watergate figures ... were
lionized as defenders of the Constitution, so too will Pelosi and House Democrats ... be
among those admired for their lucidity, intellect and character. ... For every clownish,
contemptible, screeching and dishonest House Republican, there is a sober, admirable,
restrained and honest Democrat.
"No letter, no tweet, no Fox News spin can repair the reputations of Trump enablers," Rubin
wrote. The right-wing media that cheered them on will, like outlets that rooted for Jim Crow
and demonized Freedom Riders, be shunned by decent, freedom-loving people who reaffirm
objective reality. The Republican Party will be known not as the Party of Lincoln but the
Party of Trump, a quisling party that lost its bearings and its soul to defend an unhinged
narcissist.
" Neocons for some strange reason also hate Trump, although it is not clear why --
he
Not going to comment on British politics much since I'm an ignorant American, but I have
wondered about the neocon hatred of Trump myself and I think it boils down to the fact that
he is not trustworthy.
Yes, I would agree that "the fact that he is not trustworthy" can well be an important
factor. But the USA foreign policy establishment was viewed as untrustworthy for some time
now, so nothing changed for foreign countries in this sense. Or only the degree changed.
But there are more important factors in play, I think.
The main factor probably is that the USA foreign policy establishment are hard core
neocons and preach "Full Spectum Dominance" doctrine. Heretics are burned at the stake.
That includes Trump's impeachment, persistent attempts to derail Sanders (using Biden to
push the selection of the candidate from into the state where the support of superdelegates
can be decisive), weaken Warren, and Tulsi Gabbard excommunication.
Trump's limited prevarications on Russia threaten the strategy to expand NATO to Ukraine
which is a part of the plan of a long term strategy of encircling Russia and maintaining US
dominance over Europe.
As Trump pushes great power rivalry as the name of the game, his policies threatens to
weaken the US control of EU, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor.
Here the strategic difference between Trump and the Deep State approaches become apparent:
Trump is pushing mercantilist strategy against potential competitors,while the Deep State
pursues the strategy of maintaining the global neoliberal empire led by the USA at all
costs.
The latter presuppose imposing neoliberal globalization, forceful opening other countries
economies to multinationals (much like in Trotskyism "Permanent War" doctrine), and the
maintenance of USA primacy by dominating regional alliances like NATO. But it presupposes
sharing of loot. Which Trump rejects.
Impeachment, besides its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems;
forestalling and derailing Sanders by propelling Biden as No.1 opponent of Thump and his
policies ), is the culmination of the whole series of attempts of neoliberal oligarchy's to
stage a color revolution against the President who, even though he agrees with this cabal on
all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, and too damn honest
about the real goals of the US-led neoliberal empire. The latter factor is especially
worrisome ;-)
If they can take him down, they think they can restore the business-as-usual status quo
("kick the can down the road" for a decade or more). The latter might well be an illusion.
Trump and Brexit radically changed the situation and you can't step into the same river
twice.
Trump's impeachment in this sense is yet another nail in the coffin of neoliberalism as it
negatively affects the perception of the USA, reveals to the whole world the dirty USA
internal politic kitchen, and complicates the USA foreign policy, especially "democracy
promotion" part of it, China's Global Times was quite measured yet pointed:
"To many Chinese, it seems that US-style democracy has already become a negative
concept, which has brought ceaseless chaos and produced absurd farces.
Trump's letter notes that talk about impeachment started as soon as he stepped into
office:
IMO the Deep State wanted to initiate a new McCarthyism.
Russiagate was the means to do so and that means that Impeachment was always a possibility
(though likely a red-herring, as I explain below).
IMO After the Mueller investigation progressives pressed for Impeachment but establishment
Democratics (led by Pelosi and Hillary) wouldn't allow it. People were (rightfully) asking
why establishment Democrats were protecting Trump.
With this in mind, Ukrainegate is a convenient diversion from Russiagate while providing
the Impeachment satisfaction that progressives had clamored for.
It's difficult NOT to notice that ...
... America First Trump actually furthered Russiagate when he hired Manafort
(who was known to have worked for pro-Russian Parties in Ukraine and had NO recent
experience in US elections) and called upon Russia to publish Hillary's emails (which were
KNOWN to contain top-secret information - making any publication a crime under US law);
... and America First Trump furthered Ukrainegate by the mentioning the
name of an announced political opponent when talking about investigating corruption on a
call with Zelensky.
One might excuse this in many ways: Trump's ego; his unfamiliarity with politics
and statecraft; or just bad luck. But one can also see these actions, in a larger context, as
disturbing part of the effort to initiate the new McCarthyism.
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
"... Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest of the world. ..."
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides
its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
hey b... i like your title - "How The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party" ... could change
it to" How the Deep State Sunk the USA" could work just as well...
Seven of the 11 security state representatives who had joined the Democrats in 2018 gave
the impulse for impeachment.
is this intentional?? it sort of looks like it...
good quote from @ 26 lk - "The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be
mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones."
@babyl-on 35
yes that is about right. The top power networks are all a tight mix of names from govt, MIC,
and private equity (incl. top 2-3 investment banks). With the latter group naturally paying
the salaries of the whole policy making ecosystem, and holding the positions that select
future generations who will eventually take their place.
They want the security of knowing noone in the world will mess with them. This
necessitates that noone in the world *can* mess with them. Pretty straightforward from
there.
Likbez at #5 wrote: 'Paleoconservatives hate Trump.'
I dunno. I look at 'The American Conservative' from time to time, which was created and is
run by Pat Buchanan, who's pretty much the original paleocon.
Part of that is because it's good to understand what the enemy is thinking. But also it
turns out 'The American Conservative', for instance, has guys like Scott Ritter and Andrew
Bacievich writing for them, as well as other critics of the American elite that will never be
allowed in the MSM. And that's because one particular policy axe Buchanan and his writers grind
very strongly is against the forever wars, U.S. military interventionism, and the MIC. They
hate the neocons and types like John Bolton.
Thus, when Trump makes noises or does something that looks like it plays against the MIC,
the State Department and the three-letter agencies aka The Blob, and maybe has a chance of
tamping down on the bloody military interventionism, Buchanan and co. are pro-Trump.
Conversely, Buchanan and co. are big on the evangelical Christian stuff and the hard-working
American white nuclear family who built America, blah blah blah. Whereas Trump is a billionaire
vulgarian. And there Buchanan and his writers don't like him.
So paleocons like Buchanan seem to deal with Trump on a policy-by-policy basis. Though I
radically disagree with some of the policies that Buchanan does favor, that seems reasonable to
me.
Christians had better not let the unachievable perfect be the enemy of the common-sense
good enough.
" Neocons for some strange reason also hate Trump, although it is not clear why -- he
completely folded and conduct their foreign policy."
Not going to comment on British politics much since I'm an ignorant American, but I have
wondered about the neocon hatred of Trump myself and I think it boils down to the fact that
he is not trustworthy. Yes, he has caved in and when you get past the tweets he is trying to
start a new nuclear arms race and actually armed Ukraine and gave Israel almost everything
but still, he isn't stable. He doesn't play the game right. He is supposed to talk about how
we want democracy and freedom and instead he rather openly fawns over dictators. Well, yes,
other Presidents support dictators, but never with so much open enthusiasm. Appearances
matter. And even neocons want someone who is mentally stable conducting their preferred brand
of militaristic warmongering.
Will UK voters really vote for the Republican party and our own Donald Trump?
There is so much about today's Conservative party that is very similar to the Republican
party in the US. To establish this, there is no better place to start than our future Prime
Minister for the next five years, if polls are to be believed.
Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are both inveterate liars. They lie when they have no need
to, just for effect. To take some recent examples. He told Andrew Marr that the Tories don't
do deals with other parties, when everyone can remember the Coalition government and the
Democratic Unionist Party. (Marr, as so often with interviewers, let that pass.) Johnson has
said that the extra money he has allowed for the health service is the biggest boost for a
generation. In fact it is smaller than the increase in spending from Labour from 2004
onwards. There are many like this. He has lied all his life, and been sacked from jobs twice
for doing so. He lies about lying! No UK politician in living memory has lied like this.
A consequence of that is you cannot trust a word he says. When he and his ministers say
that the NHS will not be part of any trade negotiations with the US, it means nothing. Brexit
puts the UK in a very weak position because the political costs of walking away, while the
costs for the US are zero. So of course the National Health Service and things that affect
the NHS will be part of any trade deal.
When he says that he will get a trade deal with the EU in just a year he is lying. It is
just not possible given the reasons the Conservatives want to leave the EU. So voters will
have to decide which lie he will choose: to break his undertaking not to extend the
transition period or to leave with no deal.
Like Trump, Johnson treats the economy, and the consequent wellbeing of everyone in it, as
a plaything for his own ends. With Trump this involves imposing tariffs because of his 15th
century understanding of economics. With Johnson he chose Brexit on a toss up about what
would advance his own ambitions. He then championed the hardest of Brexits because it
appealed to those who would vote him leader of his party. But there is a difference: Brexit
is far more harmful than anything Trump has managed.
Where Trump wants to increase coal production in the US, Johnson wants to stop any
increases in fuel duty. Johnson didn't attend a leaders debate on climate change.
Johnson, like Trump, is totally lacking in empathy for others, and is only interested in
himself. Johnson thought nothing of helping a friend beat up a journalist. His personal life
matters because it reflects the kind of person he is.
Like Trump, he has no time or respect for people who disagree with him. He shut down
parliament because it was getting in his way. In his manifesto he now threatens to curtail
the ability of the law to stop him doing what he and his party want. Johnson and the
Conservatives, like Trump and the Republicans, are a threat to democracy.
Like Trump, he and his party want a totally compliant media. They have put so much
pressure on the BBC that parts of it now do what they can to flatter Johnson and the
Conservative cause. They have threatened Channel4 because they put a block of ice in his
place when he failed to turn up to that leaders debate on climate change.
Like Trump, Johnson hates scrutiny. They both would much rather talk to an adoring party
faithful than take part in critical questioning. In this election, Johnson has avoided
questions from the press as much as he can, has avoided debates, and is avoiding an interview
with one of the best interviewers around.
One reason they both hate scrutiny is their inability to concentrate on the details, the
kind of details he got wrong such that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe remains in jail. This is one
reason they sent Gove rather than Johnson to do the climate change debate. Johnson is as
mentally unsuitable to be Prime Minister as Trump is to be President.
Republicans in Congress with few exceptions defend Trump. Conservative MPs do the same for
Johnson without exception, now that the few Conservatives with some attachment to One Nation
Conservatism have been driven out of the party. The Republicans never pretend to govern for
the whole country, but just for what some of them call Real America. The Conservatives with
Brexit have adopted the same policy. A narrow victory for Leave, obtained in the most dubious
referendum ever, has become a mandate for the hardest of Brexits, and with a referendum on
the final deal ruled out.
Both parties adopt divide and rule tactics, yet play the nationalist card for all its
worth. To conceal and distract from far right economic policies designed to help the 1%
wealthiest in the population, by a party financed by the even wealthier, they focus on
attracting votes from the xenophobic and racist. The Conservatives have seen off the threat
from the Brexit party by adopting the Brexit party. It was probably the votes of ex-Brexit
party members that helped secure Johnson his leadership.
The Republicans play the race card and the Tories play the immigration card, something
they have done since the turn of this century. Once you do that, it is inevitable that you
end up with a party leaders who are themselves racist. Whatever you think about Jeremy
Corbyn, it is Johnson who has expressed racial slurs like calling Muslim women letterboxes,
talked about black people as 'piccaninnies' with 'watermelon smiles', Nigerians as money
obsessed. (Not to mention his homophobic and sexist comments, and his description of working
class men as drunk, criminal and feckless, and what he originally wrote about Hillsborough
victims and single mothers.)
In the US Trump gets away with his behaviour among many because of his money and fame, and
in the UK Johnson gets away with it among many because of his class and jokes. Both are where
they are because they were given huge head starts, Trump through inheritance and Johnson
through class, and have subsequently had careers which are dotted with failure. But once you
see beyond the fame and jokes, they are both authoritarians who see nothing wrong in stoking
fears about minorities to get the majority to vote for them, and in abusing the constitution
to get their way. You might say that it is Trump not Johnson who is threatened with
impeachment, but I have lost count of the legal cases about his actions that have been
conveniently postponed for this election.
What too many commentators on this election fail to see is the potential irreversibility
of this decline into right wing authoritarian rule. With most newspapers pushing out
propaganda for the Conservatives and the BBC successfully tamed, the Conservatives now have a
sufficient block to any real scrutiny of their policies or behaviour. In the next five years
their manifesto suggests they hope to tame anyone else who gets in their way.
The Conservatives have ensured that enough people in this country see and read want they
want them to see and read. Soon we will see attempts to introduce nationwide voter ID simply
because it helps the Conservatives. It is wishful thinking to say 'if only we had another
Labour leader they would be miles ahead' - just remember Ed Miliband who lost an election
because the media conveniently decided austerity was good economics. [1]
Next year the people of the United States will have their chance to get rid of the worst
US president in living memory. We have the chance to stop our own Trump, Boris Johnson,
before he gets five years in which he could do irreversible harm to our economy, our
democracy, our union and our civil society. The danger in both countries is that they keep
their Trump/Johnson, and get locked into permanent authoritarian right wing rule similar to
what we see in Hungary and Poland.
Alarmist? Johnson shut down parliament to get his way! When Brexit fails to be the
promised land Johnson has promised and when the UK's potential fails to be unleashed, who
will the Conservatives blame for their own failure? How much will they give away to get a US
trade deal? Johnson, like Trump, is in the words of a BBC interviewer in braver times a
'nasty piece of work', whose only interest is in helping himself. It says a lot about what
the UK has become that he looks like getting elected to be Prime Minister.
[1] Of course there were other reasons Miliband lost. He was unpopular, like every Labour
leader over the past 40 years has been unpopular except the one who did a deal with the Tory
press. And in the final days he was said to be in the pocket of Alex Salmond, even though the
Scottish National Party have said they will never put a Tory PM into power so their
bargaining strength is zero. The broadcast media went with the Tory's SNP story rather than
Labour highlighting the (we now know very real) threat to the NHS.
Pelosi interference in elections might cost democrats a victory. She enraged Trump base and
strengthened Trump, who before was floundering. Now election changed into "us vs them" question,
which is very unfavorable to neoliberal Dems. as neolibelism as ideology is dead. She also
brought back Trump some independents who othersie would stay home or vote for Dem candidate. No
action of House of Representatives can changes this. Bringing Vindman and Fiona Hill to testify
were huge blunders as they enhance the narrative that the Deep State, unaccountable Security
Establishment, controls the government, to which Trump represents very weak, but still a
challenge. As such they strengthened Trump
Essentially Dems had driven themselves into a trap. Moreover actions of the Senate can drag
democrats in dirt till the elections, diminishing their chances further and firther. Can you
image the effect if Schiff would be called testify under oath about his contacts with Ciaramella?
Or Biden questioning about his dirty dealing with both Yanukovich administration and Provisional
Government after the 2014 coup d'état (aka EuroMaydan, aka "the Revolution of dignity"
?
Notable quotes:
"... It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over "withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one. Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed "isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to criticize a president. ..."
"... Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe, Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S. involvement overseas are reducing it. ..."
"... We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually been adding to them. ..."
Gideon Rachman tries to find
similarities between the foreign policies of Trump and Obama:
Both men would detest the thought. But, in crucial respects, the foreign policies of
Donald Trump and Barack Obama are looking strikingly similar.
The wildly different styles of the two presidents have disguised the underlying
continuities between their approaches to the world. But look at substance, rather than style,
and the similarities are impressive.
There is usually considerable continuity in U.S. foreign policy from one president to
another, but Rachman is making a stronger and somewhat different claim than that. He is arguing
that their foreign policy agendas are very much alike in ways that put both presidents at odds
with the foreign policy establishment, and he cites "disengagement from the Middle East" and a
"pivot to Asia" as two examples of these similarities. This seems superficially plausible, but
it is misleading. Despite talking a lot about disengagement, Obama and Trump chose to keep the
U.S. involved in several conflicts, and Trump actually escalated the wars he inherited from
Obama. To the extent that there is continuity between Obama and Trump, it has been that both of
them have acceded to the conventional wisdom of "the Blob" and refused to disentangle the U.S.
from Middle Eastern conflicts. Ongoing support for the war on Yemen is the ugliest and most
destructive example of this continuity.
In reality, neither Obama nor Trump "focused" on Asia, and Trump's foray into
pseudo-engagement with North Korea has little in common with Obama's would-be "pivot" or
"rebalance." U.S. participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a major part of Obama's
policy in Asia. Trump pulled out of that agreement and waged destructive trade wars instead.
Once we get past generalizations and look at details, the two presidents are often
diametrically opposed to one another in practice. That is what one would expect when we
remember that Trump has made dismantling Obama's foreign policy achievements one of his main
priorities.
The significant differences between the two become much more apparent when we look at other
issues. On arms control and nonproliferation, the two could not be more different. Obama
negotiated a new arms reduction treaty with New START at the start of his presidency, and he
wrapped up a major nonproliferation agreement with Iran and the other members of the P5+1 in
2015. Trump reneged on the latter and seems determined to kill the former. Obama touted the
benefits of genuine diplomatic engagement, while Trump has made a point of reversing and
undoing most of the results of Obama's engagement with Cuba and Iran. Trump's overall hostility
to genuine diplomacy makes another one of Rachman claims quite baffling:
The result is that, after his warlike "fire and fury" phase, Mr Trump is now pursuing a
diplomacy-first strategy that is strongly reminiscent of Mr Obama.
Calling Trump's clumsy pattern of making threats and ultimatums a "diplomacy-first strategy"
is a mistake. This is akin to saying that he is adhering to foreign policy restraint because
the U.S. hasn't invaded any new countries on Trump's watch. It takes something true (Trump
hasn't started a new war yet) and misrepresents it as proof that the president is serious about
diplomacy and that he wants to reduce U.S. military engagement overseas. Trump enjoys the
spectacle of meeting with foreign leaders, but he isn't interested in doing the work or taking
the risks that successful diplomacy requires. He has shown repeatedly through his own behavior,
his policy preferences, and his proposed budgets that he has no use for diplomacy or diplomats,
and instead he expects to be able to bully or flatter adversaries into submission.
So Rachman is simply wrong he reaches this conclusion:
Mr Trump's reluctance to attack Iran was significant. It underlines the fact that his
tough-guy rhetoric disguises a strong preference for diplomacy over force.
Let's recall that the near-miss of starting a war with Iran came as a result of the downing
of an unmanned drone. The fact that the U.S. was seriously considering an attack on another
country over the loss of a drone is a worrisome sign that this administration is prepared to go
to war at the drop of a hat. Calling off such an insane attack was the right thing to do, but
there should never have been an attack to call off. That episode does not show a "strong
preference for diplomacy over force." If Trump had a strong preference for diplomacy over
force, his policy would not be one of relentless hostility towards Iran. Trump does not believe
in diplomatic compromise, but expects the other side to capitulate under pressure. That
actually makes conflict more likely and reduces the chances of meaningful negotiations.
It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over
"withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that
they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one.
Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed
"isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been
criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies
because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to
criticize a president.
Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most
of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is
guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe,
Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think
there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world.
Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn
non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S.
involvement overseas are reducing it.
Rachman ends his column with this assertion:
In their very different ways, both Mr Obama and Mr Trump have reduced America's global
commitments -- and adjusted the US to a more modest international role.
The problem here is that there has been no meaningful reduction in America's "global
commitments." Which commitments have been reduced or eliminated? It would be helpful if someone
could be specific about this. The U.S. has more security dependents today than it did when
Trump took office. NATO has been expanded to include two new countries in just the last three
years. U.S. troops are engaged in hostilities in just as many countries as they were when Trump
was elected. There are more troops deployed to the Middle East at the end of this year than
there were at the beginning, and that is a direct consequence of Trump's bankrupt Iran
policy.
We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really
have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually
been adding to them.
Trump's biggest weakness is that he appears incapable of friendships with other adult males
because he trusts no one. This is probably partially the result of his dealing in the
absolutely cut throat New York real estate industry along with his own relentless and long
time need for publicity no matter how outrageous this publicity is? (Remember Trump's forays
into professional wrestling?)
Trump decided to hang out with the dogs and, no surprise, ended up getting fleas.
His continual purging of his cabinet members and his bad mouthing of them afterwards has
probably made his White House staff paranoid about challenging anything that comes out of his
mouth no matter how outrageous it is.
Along with all this self promotion has come an increasing inability to accept any sort of
criticism whatsoever. To claim he is slightly "prickly" is a gross understatement.
Where is Trump's James Baker, or better yet, his Sergey Lavrov. to moderate and control
his goofier instincts
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
If Trump is smart enough and wants History to write his name with Golden Letters, he has to
order a new and true investigation on 9/11 in his second term.
Thank you for this unorthodox view. I've noticed that my thinking has been strongly
contaminated with "The Conventional Wisdom", which includes big falsehoods and misdirections.
While the situation was stable this didn't matter much in the short run -- the politics would
be dominated by people who believed those things. But now that things are starting to fall
apart it's getting important not to believe the old lies.
So ideas which look very different are important because they challenge me to examine my
unconscious assumptions, regardless how true the new ideas may be.
About Trump . It looks to me like he has some background in professional wrestling where
the "kayfabe" concept is important. He doesn't care how awful he looks to the rubes who think
of him as a heel, provided they keep focusing on the outrageous things he says more than on
what he does. The more attention he can get on that, the more he "sucks the air out of the
room" for anything else.
It's possible the Republicans will do a surprise and nominate somebody else. That will
disrupt everybody's thinking. I don't think that's real likely, but it would sure disrupt
things, wouldn't it?
Since Truman the US presidential elections have gone 8 years of Democrats and 8 years of
Republicans, like clockwork. One single exception, Reagan got Carter's second term. Is it a
secret agreement between the parties? I don't know why. But it's plausible that the
Republican will win in 2020 and the Democrats get 8 years starting in 2024. One way to look
at it is that when it isn't their turn, the losing party runs somebody who's too far from
center.
About the "color revolution" thing, of course there hasn't been anything much like that
here. But there was the "pussy hat" march. Somebody put a lot of money into that, and a whole
lot of people turned out for it, and then it just ended. Could it have been the same people,
organizing it as a kind of trial run? They have the methodology. They could do it here, if
conditions were right. Would they? I don't know. I don't know much about them. What would it
take for conditions to be right? I don't know that either. Maybe they don't know. They have
surely analyzed the places it succeeded and the places it failed, so they know more than I
do.
Maybe the most valuable thing here is to recognize how much I don't know. I hear ideas
that sound absurd, and then realize that while there may be no truth to them, the reason I
think they are absurd is that I have accepted bullshit conventional thinking inside my own
head, and I have hardly any more teason to believe it than I do the new absurd ideas.
Commentator ben and others
critizised yesterday's post:
b, I've been a participant at this site for 14yrs, and I don't believe I've ever seen your
take on any subject more "off base", than your take on DJT.
This "man" has never been anything else but a grifter and giant con. Virtually everything
he has done, he's done to enrich himself and his family. That is, besides deconstruct the U$
govt. to enrich his class of people, (the malignantly rich) by dialing back regulations that
protect everyday Americans from the greed of the mega-corporations.
He's a sycophant for the corporate monsters who now own the U$A. Anything and everything
he's done, isn't because he is such an egalitarian, it's for his personal enrichment, and the
monsters he works for.
When they're done with him, they'll throw him under the bus, just like all the rest of
us...
I agree with ben's characterization of Trump. I dislike most of his policies. But
that does not change the fact that Donald Trump is the elected president of the United States
and that he is thereby entitled to direct its foreign policies as he sees fit.
Ben's and my opinion about Trump do not invalidate the point I made. Trump policies,
especially in international relations, are getting sabotaged or co-opted by the Borg ,
the unelected establishment in the various departments and think tanks. This is a dangerous
phenomenon that, more or less, hinders every elected president, especially those who want to
make peace. It should be resisted.
The people in leading positions of the executive work "at the pleasure of the president".
Their task is to execute his policies. When they refrain from doing so or implement their own
preferences they create a mess.
Consider two additional examples, both published yesterday, which describe how James
Jeffrey, the Special Representative for Syria Engagement, tried to
sabotage Trump's decision to leave Syria and, while doing that, misled the Kurds:
A State Department official told a senior Syrian Kurdish leader during a meeting in
Washington that the United States would not fully withdraw its forces from northeast Syria
and advised her administration not to engage with Bashar al-Assad's government or with
Russia.
According to two sources familiar with the Monday, October 22 meeting, a senior member of
Washington's diplomatic team is said to have become angry and told Ilham Ahmed, President of
the Executive Committee of the Syrian Democratic Council, that the U.S. will not allow the
SDC to arrange a deal with the Assad regime or Russia for protection against the Turkey-led
attack.
...
SDC officials told The Defense Post that American officials in the past have promised they
would not withdraw U.S. forces until a political settlement was in place to secure their
future in the Syrian political system.
Trump had long announced that the U.S. military will leave Syria. He had made no promises to
the Kurds. The State Department official did not do his job but contradicted Trump's
policies.
The National Interest has learned from multiple sources about tense meetings between
SDC diplomats and State Department officials who oversee the Trump administration's policy on
Syria. The State Department repeatedly pushed for the SDC to work with Turkish-backed
Islamist rebels while berating Syrian Kurdish officials and refusing to listen to their
concerns, according to multiple sources.
One source with firsthand knowledge of the screaming session told the National
Interest that Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Joel Rayburn, who is a special envoy
for Syria, yelled at SDC officials and broke a pencil in a translator's face. Two sources
with secondhand knowledge confirmed this version of events.
"[Rayburn] loves the Syrian Islamist groups," one of the three sources said. "He thinks
they can counter Iran. He is dreaming."
"He is pushing [the SDC] to meet with jihadists," the source added.
To tell the anarcho-marxist YPG/PKK Kurds to unite with Erdogan's Jihadis is an absolutely
crazy idea. Neither the Kurds nor Erdogan would ever agree to a partnership. These were
impossible policies. They made no sense at all.
Jeffrey and his shop clearly worked against Trump's orders and against U.S. interests.
Jeffrey clearly favors Turkey where he once worked as U.S. ambassador and, above all,
Israel:
In addition to the uptick in tense verbal exchanges, the three different sources described to
the National Interest how State Department officials attempted to condemn the brutal
murder of Kurdish-Syrian politician Hevrin Khalaf only to have their efforts waylayed by
Ambassador James Jeffrey, who oversees anti-ISIS efforts. Jeffrey blocked the statement, they
said.
...
Now, even as U.S. troops are stepping aside to allow Turkey to attack U.S.-backed Syrian
Kurdish forces, Jeffrey's team is floating plans to peel off Arab components of the Syrian
Democratic Forces to build a counter-Iran force far from the Turkish border.
It is Jeffrey who is pressing for a continued U.S. occupation of Syria's oilfields. These
are not Trump's policies, but contradictions to them.
When [Trump in December 2018] told his advisers that he wanted to withdraw U.S. forces from
Syria, he meant it. The message should have been clear: devise an orderly withdrawal plan.
But that is not what happened. Instead, efforts and attention were geared towards U.S.
forces remaining indefinitely in Syria.
One can criticize Trump for not selecting advisors and envoys who follow his directions. But
Trump is a New Yorker businessman and not a politician with decades of experience in
Washington. He does not know who he can trust. He has to proceed by trial and error until he
finds people who are willing to go work with him against those permanent powers that usually
drive U.S. foreign policy.
In a congress hearing yesterday James Jeffrey
admitted (vid) that Trump did not consult him before his phone call with Erdogan.
Erdogan could show that he was fighting against the PKK terrorists and prevented their
attempts to become a proto-state. Trump could hold his campaign promise of removing U.S.
troops from useless foreign interventions. Syria regained its northeast and the important
economic resources of that area. Russia gained global prestige and additional influence in
the Middle East.
We will have to wait for Trump's (and Putin's) memoir to learn how much of this has been
coordinated behind the scenes.
I for one count this as a major foreign policy achievement for Trump and I am happy with
this
outcome .
His extremely personalized approach to handling relationships with other governments has put
U.S. foreign policy at the mercy of his whims and moods, and it has undermined U.S. officials
whenever they have tried to make any progress in negotiations. His appointment of hard-liners
to key positions has ensured that there is no one inside the administration to argue for
mutually beneficial compromise, and that has resulted in one bankrupt, all-or-nothing policy
after another.
Trump's selection of Pompeo to run the department put someone with a deep loathing for
genuine diplomacy in charge of the administration's diplomatic efforts. In theory, having a
Secretary of State with the president's confidence should be very good for the State
Department, but when both the president and the Secretary have nothing but disdain for their
work it has proved to be a nightmare instead.
It is no surprise that fewer people are interested in joining the Foreign Service when they
see how its officers are sabotaged and maligned. It is understandable that so many career
diplomats don't want to stay on in such a toxic, demoralizing environment. We need to remember
that this isn't just a question of how one department of the federal government is being
horribly mismanaged. This is something that affects the quality of U.S. foreign policy, and
that affects American interests more broadly.
If we want to see a more responsible and restrained U.S. foreign policy, that will require
spending more on diplomacy and development and less on an already exorbitant military budget.
It means treating diplomacy as more than an afterthought or as a prelude to intervention. It
will also require putting people in charge of the State Department that respect diplomats and
value their work. Today we have just the opposite, and the results speak for themselves.
The collapse of neoliberalism naturally lead to the collapse of the US influence over the globe. and to the treats to the dollar
as the world reserve currency. That's why the US foreign policy became so aggressive and violent. Neocons want to fight for the
world hegemony to the last American.
Notable quotes:
"... US foreign policy is ever more unstable and confrontational ..."
"... Bolton's brutal defenestration has raised hopes that Trump, who worries that voters may view him as a warmonger, may begin to moderate some of his more confrontational international policies. As the 2020 election looms, he is desperate for a big foreign policy peace-making success. And, in Trump world, winning matters more than ideology, principles or personnel. ..."
"... Since taking office in January 2017, Trump has not merely broken with diplomatic and geopolitical convention. He has taken a wrecking ball to venerated alliances, multilateral cooperation and the postwar international rules-based order. ..."
"... The resulting new world disorder – to adapt George HW Bush's famous 1991 phrase – will be hard to put right. Like its creator, Trump world is unstable, unpredictable and threatening. Trump has been called America's first rogue president. Whether or not he wins a second term, this Trumpian era of epic disruption, the very worst form of American exceptionalism, is already deeply entrenched. ..."
"... driven by a chronic desire for re-election, Trump's behaviour could become more, not less, confrontational during his remaining time in office, suggested Eliot Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins university. ..."
"... "The president has proved himself to be what many critics have long accused him of being: belligerent, bullying, impatient, irresponsible, intellectually lazy, short-tempered and self-obsessed," Cohen wrote in Foreign Affairs journal . "Remarkably, however, those shortcomings have not yet translated into obvious disaster. But [that] should not distract from a building crisis of US foreign policy." ..."
"... This pending crisis stems from Trump's crudely Manichaean division of the world into two camps: adversaries/competitors and supporters/customers. A man with few close confidants, Trump has real trouble distinguishing between allies and enemies, friends and foes, and often confuses the two. In Trump world, old rules don't apply. Alliances are optional. Loyalty is weakness. And trust is fungible. ..."
"... The crunch came last weekend when a bizarre, secret summit with Taliban chiefs at Camp David was cancelled . It was classic Trump. He wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for a dramatic peace deal, pushed ahead blindly, then changed his mind at the last minute. Furious over a debacle of his own making, he turned his wrath on others, notably Bolton – who, ironically, had opposed the summit all along. ..."
"... With Trump's blessing, Israel is enmeshed in escalating, multi-fronted armed confrontation with Iran and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Add to this recent violence in the Gulf, the disastrous Trump-backed, Saudi-led war in Yemen, mayhem in Syria's Idlib province, border friction with Turkey, and Islamic State resurgence in northern Iraq, and a region-wide explosion looks ever more likely. ..."
"... "the bipartisan consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it in America's image – has failed and cannot be revived", ..."
With John Bolton dismissed, Taliban peace talks a fiasco and
a trade war with China, US foreign policy is ever more unstable and confrontational
It was by all accounts, a furious row.
Donald Trump was talking about relaxing sanctions on
Iran and holding a summit with its president, Hassan Rouhani, at this month's UN general assembly in New York. John Bolton, his hawkish
national security adviser, was dead against it and forcefully rejected Trump's ideas during a tense meeting in the Oval Office on
Monday.
...Bolton's brutal defenestration has raised hopes that Trump, who worries that voters may view him as a warmonger, may begin
to moderate some of his more confrontational international policies. As the 2020 election looms, he is desperate for a big foreign
policy peace-making success. And, in Trump world, winning matters more than ideology, principles or personnel.
The US president is now saying he is also open to a repeat meeting with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, to reboot stalled nuclear
disarmament talks. On another front, he has offered an olive branch to China, delaying a planned tariff increase on $250bn of Chinese
goods pending renewed trade negotiations next month. Meanwhile, he says, new tariffs on European car imports could be dropped, too.
Is a genuine dove-ish shift under way? It seems improbable. Since taking office in January 2017, Trump has not merely broken with
diplomatic and geopolitical convention. He has taken a wrecking ball to venerated alliances, multilateral cooperation and the postwar
international rules-based order. He has cosied up to autocrats, attacked old friends and blundered into sensitive conflicts he does
not fully comprehend.
The resulting new world disorder – to adapt George HW Bush's famous 1991 phrase – will be hard to put right. Like its creator,
Trump world is unstable, unpredictable and threatening. Trump has been called America's first rogue president. Whether or not he
wins a second term, this Trumpian era of epic disruption, the very worst form of American exceptionalism, is already deeply entrenched.
The suggestion that Trump will make nice and back off as election time nears thus elicits considerable scepticism. US analysts
and commentators say the president's erratic, impulsive and egotistic personality means any shift towards conciliation may be short-lived
and could quickly be reversed, Bolton or no Bolton.
Trump wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for a dramatic peace deal in Afghanistan with the Taliban, pushed ahead blindly,
then changed his mind at the last minute
Trump is notorious for blowing hot and cold, performing policy zigzags and suddenly changing his mind. "Regardless of who has
advised Mr Trump on foreign affairs all have proved powerless before [his] zest for chaos," the
New York Times noted last week
.
Lacking experienced diplomatic and military advisers (he has sacked most of the good ones), surrounded by an inner circle of cynical
sycophants such as secretary of state Mike Pompeo, and driven by a chronic desire for re-election, Trump's behaviour could become
more, not less, confrontational during his remaining time in office, suggested Eliot Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns
Hopkins university.
"The president has proved himself to be what many critics have long accused him of being: belligerent, bullying, impatient, irresponsible,
intellectually lazy, short-tempered and self-obsessed," Cohen wrote
in Foreign
Affairs journal . "Remarkably, however, those shortcomings have not yet translated into obvious disaster. But [that] should
not distract from a building crisis of US foreign policy."
This pending crisis stems from Trump's crudely Manichaean division of the world into two camps: adversaries/competitors and supporters/customers.
A man with few close confidants, Trump has real trouble distinguishing between allies and enemies, friends and foes, and often confuses
the two. In Trump world, old rules don't apply. Alliances are optional. Loyalty is weakness. And trust is fungible.
As a result, the US today finds itself at odds with much of the world to an unprecedented and dangerous degree. America, the postwar
global saviour, has been widely recast as villain. Nor is this a passing phase. Trump seems to have permanently changed the way the
US views the world and vice versa. Whatever follows, it will never be quite the same again.
Clues as to what he does next may be found in what he has done so far. His is a truly calamitous record, as exemplified by Afghanistan.
Having vowed in 2016 to end America's longest war, he began with a troop surge, lost interest and sued for peace. A withdrawal deal
proved elusive. Meanwhile, US-led forces
inflicted record civilian casualties .
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest The US and Israeli flags are projected on the walls of Jerusalem's Old City in May, marking the anniversary of
the US embassy transfer from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Photograph: Ahmad Gharabli/Getty
The crunch came last weekend when a bizarre, secret
summit with Taliban chiefs at Camp David was cancelled . It was classic Trump. He wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for
a dramatic peace deal, pushed ahead blindly, then changed his mind at the last minute. Furious over a debacle of his own making,
he turned his wrath on others, notably Bolton – who, ironically, had opposed the summit all along.
All sides are now vowing to step up the violence, with the insurgents aiming to disrupt this month's presidential election in
Afghanistan. In short, Trump's self-glorifying Afghan reality show, of which he was the Nobel-winning star, has made matters worse.
Much the same is true of his North Korea summitry, where expectations were raised, then dashed when he got
cold feet
in Hanoi , provoking a backlash from Pyongyang.
The current crisis over Iran's nuclear programme is almost entirely of Trump's making, sparked by his decision last year to renege
on the 2015 UN-endorsed deal with Tehran. His subsequent "maximum pressure" campaign of punitive sanctions has
failed to cow
Iranians while alienating European allies. And it has led Iran to resume banned nuclear activities – a seriously counterproductive,
entirely predictable outcome.
Trump's unconditional, unthinking support for Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's aggressively rightwing prime minister – including tacit
US backing for his proposed annexation of swathes of the occupied territories – is pushing the Palestinians back to the brink, energising
Hamas and Hezbollah, and
raising tensions across the region .
With Trump's blessing, Israel is enmeshed in escalating, multi-fronted armed confrontation with Iran and its allies in Iraq,
Lebanon and Syria. Add to this recent violence in the Gulf, the disastrous Trump-backed, Saudi-led war in Yemen, mayhem in Syria's
Idlib province, border friction with Turkey, and Islamic State resurgence in northern Iraq, and a region-wide explosion looks ever
more likely.
The bipartisan consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it
in America's image – has failed and cannot be revived
Stephen Wertheim, historian
Yet Trump, oblivious to the point of recklessness, remains determined to unveil his absurdly unbalanced Israel-Palestine "deal
of the century" after Tuesday's Israeli elections. He and his gormless son-in-law, Jared Kushner, may be the only people who don't
realise their plan has a shorter life expectancy than a snowball on a hot day in Gaza.
... ... ...
...he is consistently out of line, out on his own – and out of control. This, broadly, is Trump world as it has come to exist
since January 2017. And this, in a nutshell, is the intensifying foreign policy crisis of which Professor Cohen warned. The days
when responsible, trustworthy, principled US international leadership could be taken for granted are gone. No vague change of tone
on North Korea or Iran will by itself halt the Trump-led slide into expanding global conflict and division.
Historians such as Stephen Wertheim say change had to come. US politicians of left and right mostly agreed that "the bipartisan
consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it in America's image –
has failed and cannot be revived",Wertheim wrote earlier this year
. "But agreement ends there " he continued: "One camp holds that the US erred by coddling China and Russia, and urges a new competition
against these great power rivals. The other camp, which says the US has been too belligerent and ambitious around the world, counsels
restraint, not another crusade against grand enemies."
This debate among grownups over America's future place in the world will form part of next year's election contest. But before
any fundamental change of direction can occur, the international community – and the US itself – must first survive another 16 months
of Trump world and the wayward child-president's poll-fixated, ego-driven destructive tendencies.
Survival is not guaranteed. The immediate choice facing US friends and foes alike is stark and urgent: ignore, bypass and marginalise
Trump – or actively, openly, resist him.
Here are some of the key flashpoints around the globe
United Nations
Trump is deeply hostile to the UN. It embodies the multilateralist, globalist policy approaches he most abhors – because they
supposedly infringe America's sovereignty and inhibit its freedom of action. Under him, self-interested US behaviour has undermined
the authority of the UN security council's authority. The US has rejected a series of international treaties and agreements, including
the Paris climate change accord and the Iran nuclear deal. The UN-backed international criminal court is beyond the pale. Trump's
attitude fits with his "America First" isolationism, which questions traditional ideas about America's essential global leadership
role.
Germany
Trump rarely misses a chance to bash Germany, perhaps because it is Europe's most successful economy and represents the EU, which
he detests. He is obsessed by German car imports, on which protectionist US tariffs will be levied this autumn. He accuses Berlin
– and Europe– of piggy-backing on America by failing to pay its fair share of Nato defence costs. Special venom is reserved for Germany's
chancellor, Angela Merkel, most likely because she is
a woman who stands up to him . Trump recently insulted another female European leader, Denmark's
Mette Frederiksen, after she refused to sell him Greenland .
Israel
Trump has made a great show of unconditional friendship towards Israel and its rightwing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who
has skilfully maximised his White House influence. But by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, officially condoning Israel's annexation
of the Golan Heights, and withdrawing funding and other support from the Palestinians, the president has abandoned the long-standing
US policy of playing honest broker in the peace process. Trump has also tried to exploit antisemitism for political advantage, accusing
US Democrat Jews who oppose Netanyahu's policies of "disloyalty" to Israel.
After the ideology is discredited, foreign policy became less coherent and more aggressive
then nessesry. That speeds the demise of the empire. Whom the gods would destroy they first make
mad
@A123
Consider that DJT himself, you'd think, would dump Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, Berkowitz, et al if
he could inasmuch as, if he'd hired them to put up a skyscraper and their performance was
like their work in foreign policy, they'd be gone. From his work in the real world building
complex stuff he'd see right off that what marks government experts from the "best schools"
isn't their expertise, but their preternaturally lousy judgment. They look and sound like
goofballs because that's what they are, not because their geniuses. Altho Boot's apparently
out of favor, consider that Israel's costumed automatons in the Pentagon allowed themselves
to be swayed by this slobberlipped moron with drool coming out of the side of his mouth, and
he's supposedly one of the neocons' finest minds.
Since the president's performance is so utterly out of character and against America's
overseas economic interests, it follows he's being handled, and if he's being handled, it can
only be by Israel. The implication is that a parasite, which also owns the public forum in
America and through its ownership of the msm the formation of men's minds, is directing our
foreign policy. It's analogous to the way certain insect parasites like Ampulex sp take
command of their much larger prey's antenna and in so doing can direct the prey to do its
bidding by processing the prey's contact with the external world.
In his Logic of Failure Dietrich Doerner cites his research that supposed experts have no
more judgment or ability to respond to unfamiliar feedback loops in scenarios of increasing
complexity than students do. Unfolding events of increasing complexity become increasingly
opaque to these block heads in the State Dept and the president's inner circle because they
continue to follow a fairytale situational model of the ME constructed for them by Israeli
intelligence and neocon "experts."
Incredibly, they assume it correctly models outcomes despite a known 100% failure rate
that'll be compounded a hundredfold if another "call walk" breaks out with a military
powerhouse like Iran. Overall I can't believe they can be that stupid, and if they're not
that stupid, it follows they are intentionally wasting and destroying both the US economy and
its military to establish Eretz Israel as the new world empire. After that the president's
good friend Netanyahu has supposedly promised he'll toss the US on the ash heap of
history.
It's the Theater of the Absurd . I'm waiting for Mr. Pompeo to come out and tell us
that our new, duly elected president is Juan Guaidó. Or maybe Juan Valdez.
Trump and the Art of the Flail
Protectionism is worse when it's erratic and unpredictable.
By Paul Krugman
The "very stable genius" in the Oval Office is, in fact, extremely unstable, in word and
deed. That's not a psychological diagnosis, although you can make that case too. It's just a
straightforward description of his behavior. And his instability is starting to have serious
economic consequences.
To see what I mean about Trump's behavior, just consider his moves on China trade over the
past month, which have been so erratic that even those of us who follow this stuff
professionally have been having a hard time keeping track.
First, Trump unexpectedly announced plans to greatly expand the range of Chinese goods
subject to tariffs. Then he had his officials declare China a currency manipulator -- which
happens to be one of the few economic sins of which the Chinese are innocent. Then, perhaps
fearing the political fallout from the higher prices of many consumer goods from China during
the holiday season, which would result from the tariff hikes, he postponed -- but didn't
cancel -- them.
Wait, there's more. China, predictably, responded to the new United States tariffs with
new tariffs on U.S. imports. Trump, apparently enraged, declared that he would raise his
tariffs even higher, and declared that he was ordering U.S. companies to wind down their
business in China (which is not something he has the legal authority to do). But at the Group
of 7 summit in Biarritz he suggested that he was having "second thoughts," only to have the
White House declare that he actually wished he had raised tariffs even more.
And we're not quite done. On Monday Trump said that the Chinese had called to indicate a
desire to resume trade talks. But there was no confirmation from the Chinese, and Trump has
been a notably unreliable narrator of what's going on in international meetings. For example,
he made the highly improbable claim that "World Leaders" (his capitalization) were asking
him, "Why does the American media hate your Country so much?"
To repeat, all of this has happened just this month. Now imagine yourself as a business
leader trying to make decisions amid this Trumpian chaos.
The truth is that protectionism gets something of an excessively bad rap. Tariffs are
taxes on consumers, and they tend to make the economy poorer and less efficient. But even
high tariffs don't necessarily hurt employment, as long they're stable and predictable: the
jobs lost in industries that either rely on imported inputs or depend on access to foreign
markets can be offset by job gains in industries that compete with imports.
History is, in fact, full of examples of economies that combined high tariffs with more or
less full employment: America in the 1920s, Britain in the 1950s and more.
But unstable, unpredictable trade policy is very different. If your business depends on a
smoothly functioning global economy, Trump's tantrums suggest that you should postpone your
investment plans; after all, you may be about to lose access to your export markets, your
supply chain or both. It's also, though, not a good time to invest in import-competing
businesses; for all you know, Trump will eventually back down on his threats. So everything
gets put on hold -- and the economy suffers.
One question you might ask is why Trumpian trade uncertainty is looming so much larger now
than it did during the administration's first two years. Part of the answer, I think, is that
until fairly recently most analysts expected the U.S.-China trade conflict to be resolved
with minimal disruption. You may recall that after denouncing Nafta as the worst trade deal
ever made, Trump essentially surrendered and declared victory, settling for a new deal almost
indistinguishable from the old one. Most economic newsletters I get predicted a similar
outcome for the U.S. and China.
At the same time, the U.S. economy is slowing as the brief sugar high from the 2017 tax
cut wears off. Another leader might engage in some self-reflection. Trump being Trump, he's
blaming others and lashing out. He has declared both Jerome Powell, chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board, and Xi Jinping, China's leader, enemies. As it turns out, however, there's
nothing much he can do to bully the Fed, but the quirks of U.S. trade law do allow him to
slap new tariffs on China.
Of course, Trump's trade belligerence is itself contributing to the economic slowdown. So
there's an obvious possibility for a vicious circle. The economy weakens; a flailing Trump
lashes out at China, and possibly others (Europe may be next); this further weakens the
economy; and so on.
At that point you might expect an intervention from the grown-ups in the room -- but there
aren't any. In any other administration Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, a.k.a. the Lego
Batman guy, would be considered a ridiculous figure; these days, however, he's as close as we
get to a voice of economic rationality. But whenever he tries to talk sense, as he apparently
did over the issue of Chinese currency manipulation, he gets overruled.
Protectionism is bad; erratic protectionism, imposed by an unstable leader with an
insecure ego, is worse. But that's what we'll have as long as Trump remains in office.
Done nothing EVIL bar fire 100 cruise missiles into Syria and attempting to starve
millions in Venezuela & Iran, while sucking on Bibi's ****, emboldening him to continue
on a genocidal path in the ME among other twisted fuckery.
The problem with Trump is that everything in him is second rate. Even bulling. and many americans were aware of that and
voted for him just because that thought that Hillary was worse. Much worse.
And Daniel
Larison is correct: when Trump faces strong backlash he just declare the partner in negotiation "terrible" and walks out and try
to justify his defeat ex post facto.
Notable quotes:
"... As we have seen, Trump's bullying, maximalist approach does not work with other governments, and this approach cannot work because the president sees everything as a zero-sum game and winning requires the other side's capitulation. ..."
"... The result is that no government gives Trump anything and instead all of them retaliate in whatever way is available to them. He can't agree to a mutually beneficial compromise because he rejects the idea that the other side might come away with something. Because every existing agreement negotiated in the past has required some compromise on our government's part, he condemns all of them as "terrible" because they did not result in the other party's surrender. ..."
"... he is so clueless about international relations and diplomacy that he still thinks it can get him what he wants. The reality is that all of his foreign policy initiatives are failing or have already failed, and the costs for ordinary people in the targeted countries and here at home keep going up. ..."
"... "Temperamentally, the president is unprepared for diplomacy and negotiations with sovereign states," said D'Antonio. "He doesn't know how to practice the give-and-take that would produce bilateral or multilateral achievements and he takes things so personally that he considers those with a different point of view to be enemies. He is offended when others decline to be bullied and angered by those who counter his proposals with their own ideas." ..."
"... The greatest trick that Trump pulled on Americans was to make many of them believe that he understood how to negotiate when he has never been any good at it. Now the U.S. and many other countries around the world are paying the price. ..."
"... "Trump has always been a lousy negotiator." ..."
"... But, but, but... he is very good in breaking up negotiated treaties, and breaking up negotiation itself. ..."
Michael Hirsh
reminds us
that Trump has always been a lousy negotiator:
Michael D'Antonio, a Trump biographer who interviewed him many times, agrees with Lapidus that there is no discernible difference
in the way Trump negotiates today, as president, compared to his career in business. "His style involves a hostile attitude and
a bullying method designed to wring every possible concession out of the other side while maximizing his own gain," D'Antonio
said. "As he explained to me, he's not interested in 'win-win' deals, only in 'I win' outcomes. When I asked if he ever left anything
on the table as a sign of goodwill so that he might do business with the same party in the future he said no, and pointed out
that there are many people in the world he can work with, one at a time."
As we have seen, Trump's bullying, maximalist approach does not work with other governments, and this approach cannot work
because the president sees everything as a zero-sum game and winning requires the other side's capitulation.
The result is that no government gives Trump anything and instead all of them retaliate in whatever way is available to them.
He can't agree to a mutually beneficial compromise because he rejects the idea that the other side might come away with something.
Because every existing agreement negotiated in the past has required some compromise on our government's part, he condemns all of
them as "terrible" because they did not result in the other party's surrender.
He seems particularly obsessed with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) because the trade-off inherent in any agreement
made with Iran was that they would regain access to frozen assets, and he ignorantly equates this with "giving" them money. The fact
that the JCPOA heavily favored the U.S. and the rest of the P5+1 doesn't interest Trump. Iran was allowed to come away with something
at the end, and even the little bit they were able to get is far too much for him. This is one reason he has been so closely aligned
with Iran hawks over the last four years, and it helps explain why he endorses absurd, unrealistic demands and "maximum pressure"
of collective punishment. He is doing more or less the same thing he has always done, and he is so clueless about international relations
and diplomacy that he still thinks it can get him what he wants. The reality is that all of his foreign policy initiatives are failing
or have already failed, and the costs for ordinary people in the targeted countries and here at home keep going up.
Here is another relevant point from the article:
"Temperamentally, the president is unprepared for diplomacy and negotiations with sovereign states," said D'Antonio. "He
doesn't know how to practice the give-and-take that would produce bilateral or multilateral achievements and he takes things so
personally that he considers those with a different point of view to be enemies. He is offended when others decline to be bullied
and angered by those who counter his proposals with their own ideas."
The greatest trick that Trump pulled on Americans was to make many of them believe that he understood how to negotiate when
he has never been any good at it. Now the U.S. and many other countries around the world are paying the price.
Pulling off that "greatest trick" was amazing easy, actually: all Trump and his creatures had to do was go on the assumption that
most Americans will readily believe what they see on television. Especially when it jibes with their prejudices.
"The greatest trick that Trump pulled on Americans was to make many of
them believe that he understood how to negotiate when he has never been
any good at it."
While I agree with pretty much all of the article, let us not forget that a majority of Americans was not, in fact, fooled.
Americans are certainly paying a price Benjamin Franklin warned about. But as for other countries, theirs is due strictly to their
own doing, for relying excessively on the goodwill of America and turning a blind-eye to our imperialism. Quite frankly, up to
now, US allies have been enablers.
Add to that, " When someone hits me, I hit them back ten times harder."
This is not what we teach our children. It is a miserable way to live, or to run a country. No wonder the President is longer
referred to as "the leader of the free world." He gave up that title. These are sad days.
Yes, he is utterly incompetent on his main selling point, his supposed skill at negotiating. It is very inconvenient having Trump
as our standard-bearer.
"The greatest trick that Trump pulled on Americans was to make many of them believe that he understood how to negotiate when he
has never been any good at it."
Actually, the people who voted for Trump and who support him now love him for being a bully. That's what they want. They want
a Tony Soprano as their president, a guy who will go out and beat up all the people they hate. They don't want "negotiation".
They want a guy who has a baseball bat and knows how to use it. What's "interesting" is that despite all of Trump's appeals to
violence, and his willingness to support violence (for example, Saudi Arabia), he largely shrinks from it himself. We've seen
far fewer Tomahawks than one might have expected, particularly considering the great press he received the first time around.
Will we continue to be lucky? I hope so, but it's hard to be optimistic.
"... "The sentiment out in farm country is getting grimmer by the day," said John Heisdorffer, the chairman of the American Soybean Association. "Our patience is waning, our finances are suffering and the stress from months of living with the consequences of these tariffs is mounting. ..."
"... The Republican senator Chuck Grassley, who represents Iowa, a state heavily reliant on agriculture, has called for a quick resolution to the dispute. "Americans understand the need to hold China accountable, but they also need to know that the administration understands the economic pain they would feel in a prolonged trade war," Grassley said in a statement. ..."
American farmers are likely to feel the pain first. Soybean exports to China collapsed last year when the trade war began, and
agricultural exports will be hit harder when, or if, the new tariffs are imposed. Farmers are also suffering from extensive flooding
that has delayed planting.
"The sentiment out in farm country is getting grimmer by the day," said John Heisdorffer, the chairman of the American Soybean
Association. "Our patience is waning, our finances are suffering and the stress from months of living with the consequences of these
tariffs is mounting."
The new round of tariffs will hit other parts of the US food industry, with beans, lentils, honey, flour, corn and oats all on
the list of goods that will be taxed.
... ... ...
The Republican senator Chuck Grassley, who represents Iowa, a state heavily reliant on agriculture, has called for a quick
resolution to the dispute. "Americans understand the need to hold China accountable, but they also need to know that the administration
understands the economic pain they would feel in a prolonged trade war," Grassley said in a statement.
"... EU is the power, that took part in creating narco-haven in Kosovo, murdering children of Iraq, building sex slaves markets in Libya, destroying what was left of democracy in Ukraine. EU power is diminishing? Let it crash and burn if you ask me. ..."
Did it really made USA position better in 2018 than it was in 2014? I doubt. To me it seemes
more like T.T. accelerated things and "threw it all on the table" making Venezuela "hit the
rock bottom". Now Venezuela can adjust to the new brave world, while USA would probably not be
in position to tighten its grip - it already burned all the reserves and in so clumsy way, that
Bolton and Co became a laughing stock. If anything, it exposed that while most gov't there
would be paying lip service to USA, none would go with something material. France invaded with
USA Libya, Germany invaded with USA Serbia, but none enlisted to invade Venezuela with USA.
> In Latin America most governments are now US puppet governments.
Brazil was indeed a huge blow into the BRICS dream. But i see it more of that indirect,
covert "soft power" that USA secret services prepared and rushed to implement before Trump.
> Weakened the EU, via support for Brexit and other ways - it means that the euro will
not be a viable alternative for replacing the dollar
Basically turning EU elites against USA and splitting "Western Hegemony" into rivaling
factions.
From multipolar view circa 2010, would it be much difference for, say, Russia or China or
Iran, whether USD or EUR would be "reserve currency"?
After Alexander of Macedonia died his empire split to pieces, and some of those pieces soon
started warring. Did this enhance Greek hegemony or reduced it?
When COMECOM and Warsaw Pact disbanded did it enhanced Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe
or reduced it? But it slashed exports of those lands, Bulgaria is not more agriculture
super-power it used to be, "Ikarus" bus is still often meet in Moscow street but in the
"remnants of old times still able to run" kind, Poland is no more producing ocean-grade ships.
So, was it enhancing USSR share of world economy then?
Also, didn't he kind of forced EU elites into Chinese OBOR camp? That said, similarly Russia
was forced towards China in 2013-2014 by Western lunacy, so i would not say it was Trump's
novelty to push EU eastwards.
EU was in with US in looting Libya, EU was in with US in looting Serbia, now US calls for EU
to join in "patrolling" Persian Gulf and response is... like the one about invading Venezuela.
Hegemon became stronger?
> Trade wars seem to be hitting EU's export dependent economy pretty hard.
And i wish to see more of those wars not less. Won't you? EU is the power, that took
part in creating narco-haven in Kosovo, murdering children of Iraq, building sex slaves markets
in Libya, destroying what was left of democracy in Ukraine. EU power is diminishing? Let it
crash and burn if you ask me.
> Turkey has serious economic problems - partly due to the US again - which again means
slowing down multipolarity
Wasn't in 2012 Turkey part of Hegemon entourage neck-deep in bloody ISIS affair?
Wasn't Turkey for decades be knockign into closed EU membership doors?
Wasn't Turkey send their poeple into Germany to intertwine and cross-influence?
Turkey as part of multipolarity? Maybe. But exactly because it was prohibited from what they
see their place in global western world. However i am not very sure that would West offer
"larger piece" to Turkey in their crippling hegemony, turkey would not turn back yet again.
Goog thing, it would be hard to do as few believe western promises today, but again, didn't
Trump (but other western politicians too, and including many pre-Trump) invested into making
West glaringly "not agreement-capable" in but everyone's view?
Trump could smash Turkey and instate Kudistan.
Trump could smash Kurds and make amends with Erdo.
Instead Trump is breaking pots with both. Neither Kurds not Turks no trust "the shining
beacon".
> Overall situation - the US share in the world economy is declining at slower rates than
before
Won't this mean Trump's economic policy is if limited success?
> the retarding of growth of everyone else, which means defacto slowing down
multipolarity and the replacement of the US dollar
That may be what some faction of Team Trump counting upon. But i have reservations.
Uni-polarity is not about economic growth. It is about trading on One True Market, hegemon's
one.
And when everything goes down, another factors start to weigh in. Like elasticity of demand and
replacement with cheaper substitutes. Like, if i need a tooling for my house, i would perhaps
want to purchase Japanese Makita or German Bosh. Those are famous brands with decades of well
earned reputation. But if i only can salivate on them, then perhaps i can go with some cheaper
Chinese knock-off? Or perhaps to blow the dust from my grandpa's old tool and purchase nothing
at all? If i can buy genuine American Levi's it is a fad, but if i can, then perhaps i will
make it in Turkey-made or China-made or Philipinnes-made or even Syria-made jeans? You know,
their cut is not that fitting as European or American, but perhaps we can deal with it for the
price? If in Russia i can no more buy Czech or German beer as before 2014, then perhaps i can
sooth myself with apple cidre from semi-eastern Altai region of Russia? And then, will my gov't
still had the same need for USD for those adjusted trade transactions, as it used to?
The 'max pressure', Make America Great Again formula is not going to work, for the
simple reason that it is consuming America's 'capital stock' at a torrential rate. It will
neither restore America's manufacturing base, nor will it recover to America it's political
hegemony. It polarises widely. All the world now understands that MAGA is about gaining
whatever advantage there is that can be accrued to the US, whilst making everyone else pay the
price – and pick up the loss. Even the Europeans have 'got that' now. Trumpism lacks
'dimension' beyond the mercantile. Yet, if it could narrate cultural 'sovereignty-ism' as
something more than being mere 'anti-identity politics', and narrow advantage, it might find
some wider sustainability.
As it is, the narrowly defined MAGA policy, simply is eating both into America's political
capital – and, is eating away at America's unparalleled privilege of being able to
consume at a higher standard of living than others on the US reserve currency, 'credit card',
which requires no settlement by the US of its debit dollar balances. By sanctioning 'the world'
and playing so loose with dollar hegemony and the Bretton Woods system, the US ultimately will
lose it all. It will then face the unpleasant experience of having to pay – with
something of real value – for all that it consumes. It will shock.
It is true that the global system sorely needed a shake-up, and Trump's iconoclasm has been,
as it were, to that extent, a creative-destructive force that opens the path to seeding
something new. But the 'disrupter' impulse can become an unmitigated train-wreck, absent any
balancing fecundity which might bring some synthesis or ultimate harmony.
For now, there is no sight of any figure around President Trump that has either the insight,
or the political ' savoir fare ', to lead the US President out from his 'corner'. On the
contrary, a train-wreck in foreign policy – and ultimately – in
monetary policy too (as the 'Fed' keeps fuelling the financial bubble, while the real
economy moulders) – seems ahead. Maximum pressure has not harvested its anticipated
political dividends – instead it is dangerously escalating global tensions.
Trump's foreign policy both has been centred around – and blighted by – his
deep-seated antipathy towards Iran. It lies at the apex of his Greater Israel policy, and
his 2018 tweet that "Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the
United States. I am asking for WORLD PEACE, nothing less!" (capitalisation is Trump's).
The collateral damage cascading from the obsession that Iran represents 'cosmic evil', and
if defeated, WORLD PEACE is somehow assured, is spreading: Russia's refusal to pivot against
Iran represents the principal reason for the souring of Trump's relations with President Putin.
Iran policy is dividing Europe from America. It has become a substantive impediment in the
China relationship (as China requires energy security, and is not prepared to join the
boycott). And the US Iran policy may yet result in global economic damage (should the oil risk
heighten). The Middle East already is roiling, and Iran has become the universal US
bureaucratic pretext for why American forces must be kept in place in place across regional
conflicts. (They are required there 'to contain Iran').
As Daniel Larison writes
in The American Conservative , Trump's Iran "policy is one of regime change in all but
name, and Trump has signed off on everything that has made it so. He has no problem waging
economic war on Iran, and he has given the hawks virtually everything they want. Trump's Iran
policy is "the hawkish policy" in action, and if it is a disaster, that is because the "hawkish
policy" was guaranteed to be one The president is fixated on nuclear weapons because his
National Security Advisor has
beenrunning
around for monthspromoting
the lie that Iran seeks nuclear weapons, and he and other advisers have managed to convince
(dupe) Trump of another lie: that the JCPOA "permits" Iran to acquire nuclear weapons".
"Iran hawks [have long] opposed the deal because they [never] wanted Iran to benefit
from sanctions relief Iran hawks [keep] up the pretense that they want a "better deal"
[because they] spent the previous 15 years before the JCPOA, hyperventilating about a
potential Iranian nuclear weapon, often absurdly describing it as an "existential threat."
For most of this century, many Iran hawks wouldn't shut up about the need for preventive
military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. The nuclear issue was their pretext for
conflict, and they hated it when the nuclear deal took that pretext away So instead we get
the endless carping about the "flaws" in the deal that aren't really flaws, and the shameless
goalpost-moving, that requires a non-proliferation agreement to solve all regional problems
[all] at the same time.
"Trump has embraced these lies [and] has repeated them several times. Iran can't
negotiate with an administration that claims that the nuclear deal "permits" them to have
nuclear weapons. They know that it doesn't, and so they have to assume that there is no
agreement they would be willing to make that would be acceptable to the administration. Sure
enough, the administration's latest talking point that Iran must agree to give up all
enrichment confirms that the US is insisting on a concession that Iran is never going to
make. Trump doesn't want to talk to Iran as his predecessor did. He wants Iran to capitulate.
That has always been the goal of "maximum pressure." Trump's Iran policy is definitely a
hawkish policy, and that is why it is producing such awful results for the US and
Iran."
So, why have the hawks been so vehement in opposing the normalising of relations with Iran?
It is because normalisation would shift the strategic balance away from those states favouring
accommodation with Israel – towards the so-called resistance states who never have (in
their view). PM Netanyahu has been adamant throughout that sanctions relief must never be
offered to Iran – he sees US sanctions as the leverage to force Iran's expulsion from
Syria.
It is this intransigent stance that lay behind the failure of the tri-partite meeting of
national security advisers of US Israel and Russia in late June. Netanyahu earlier had proposed
to Putin that he (i.e Israel) represented the 'gateway' to opening doors in DC; that with
Israeli endorsement, Netanyahu could bring the ending to US sanctions on Russia, but only were
Mr Putin to agree to end Russia's ties with Iran, and to isolate Tehran.
President Putin had countered with the offer that – were the US to lift sanctions on
Iran, and withdraw its forces from Syria – then Russia would use its best endeavours to
have Iran exit Syria. American and Israeli interests additionally, then would be 'accommodated'
in a Syrian political settlement.
The Jerusalem trilateral, in short, was expected by Netanyahu to lay the ground work for a
clear commitment by Russia to sever relations with Iran – and that this would be unveiled
as the 'grand outcome' for Trump at the Osaka G20, following his one-on-one with Putin. It
didn't happen.
In the event, Netanyahu blankly refused any lifting of sanctions on Iran (arguing that
sanctions represented real leverage over Iran's presence in Syria), and the trilateral not only
failed in its strategic objective, but the Russian representative at the trilateral, Nikolai
Patrushev, while being friendly to Israel, did not abjure Iran. Quite the opposite: He denied
Tehran is a threat to regional security. "Russia sides with Iran, against Israel and US. A
senior Russian official stands by Tehran's claim that US drone was shot down in Iranian
airspace, defends rights of foreign troops to remain in Syria despite Israeli opposition",
concluded one Israeli journal.
And in consequence, the Osaka summit between Trump and Putin did not go well either: Trump
merely handed Putin a list of US demands. Putin smiled sphinx-like, but did not answer.
But look: The White House's Iran policy is but the lead 'chariot' heading towards a tight
bend at Circo Massimo (Circus Maximus), and to a potential 'pile up'. Close behind is
US-Russia relations; the chariot of trade war with China, and in the tail, the laggard of trade
war with Europe. Far more grave – for us all – would be if US-Russia relations
slams into the stadium wall. And we are close to that happening: The incident with the Russian
submersible that led to the loss of fourteen lives (whose details the parties prefer to keep
quiet), and the letter from NATO insisting that Russia's 9M729 ground-launched cruise missile
systems breach the INF treaty and must be destroyed, all set a scene of gravely deteriorating
relations.
Why would Trump risk so much on an ancient Middle Eastern quarrel? Why snub Putin over Iran?
Maybe Trump has convinced himself of the narrative that Iran is indeed a cosmic evil, in the
biblical sense. But his conversion to this ideology also happens to sit comfortably with his
immediate interests:
Last week the summit of Christians United for Israel , took place in DC. Thousands of
evangelical Christians from across the country attended the event, at which Mike Pence,
Mike Pompeo (both evangelicals), as well as, John Bolton, Jason Greenblatt, and his ambassador
to Israel, David Friedman all spoke. The theme, of course, was the Iranian threat.
"Evangelicals, the backbone of Christians United for Israel, are a key voting bloc for
Trump and the Republicans. Around 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016,
helping him secure victories in several swing states. The consensus among US political
analysts is that the president will need similar or greater support among evangelicals to win
a second term next year.
"Last week, the news website Axios reported that Trump's re-election campaign "is
developing an aggressive, state-by-state plan to mobilize even more evangelical voters than
supported him last time." This will include, according to the report, "voter registration
drives at churches in battleground states such as Ohio, Nevada and Florida," which will
promote Trump's record on issues important to evangelical voters."
And the primordial interest for these Evangelical voters? Moving toward actualising
(Biblical) Greater Israel as a prophesy fulfilled. And here is the unsolved question – as
Iran escalates its counter-pressures, in response, and as America's strangulation hold tightens
– what will Trump do?
"At the moment", Ben Caspit, a leading Israel commentator
notes , "Trump is influenced by his close advisers (mainly John Bolton and Mike Pompeo) who
have adopted a hawkish stance and are not deterred at the thought of military involvement (at
least aerial involvement) vis-a-vis Tehran. But the US president also has other mentors (some
political and some from the media world) who claim that getting involved in a military
adventure on the eve of elections would greatly reduce Trump's chances of reelection to a
second term of office."
Caspit however, does 'nod' towards the weight of the Evangelicals: "Israel has transformed
this evangelical repository into a tremendous electoral-diplomatic-strategic asset over the
last three years, vis-a-vis Trump's administration. Netanyahu and his ambassador to Washington,
Ron Dermer, have great influence over the evangelical preachers. The relationship between
Israel and this American Christian-messianic faction has been deepening [even to the point of
rivalling AIPAC]"
"One thing is sure",
concludes Caspit: "The considerations and analyses in Israel surrounding the Iran issue at
this point in time are completely different than what prevailed in the summer of 2012 One way
or another, anyone who thought that the issue of a possible Israeli attack on Iran has long
since been removed from the agenda is welcome to catch up: It is returning".
"... "Rather than simply pointing out how unqualified Kelly Craft is for the United Nations job, I think it would be wise for us to reconsider the idea of politically appointed ambassadors entirely," Ashford said. "Is there really any ambassadorial appointment so unimportant that it should be handled by a donor, rather than by experienced diplomats? The whole donations-for-ambassadorships system is bad for U.S. diplomacy and national security." ..."
"... "Certainly, having an entirely inexperienced diplomat in the United Nations role will probably empower Pompeo, and is reflective of Bolton's own antipathy towards international organizations," said Ashford. ..."
"... an inexperienced DNI would allow Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to continue heavily influencing the U.S. intelligence community, as he has done for over a year since leaving the CIA, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials. ..."
"... "Pompeo, who was Donald Trump's first CIA director, is now serving as a key intermediary between Trump and the U.S. intelligence community, the officials say, a very unusual role for the secretary of state, who is supposed to be a customer of the intelligence community, not its master," The Intercept report ed. "Pompeo has emerged as the administration's de facto intelligence czar." ..."
"... "It's not easy to be a Trump ambassador," she added. Due to Trump's "particularly confrontational style," which "makes the job of diplomacy more challenging," it's particularly impressive that Craft was able to "keep the relationship going extraordinarily well on behalf of the U.S. and Canada" throughout the renegotiation of the trade deal and the "daily work of solving border issues." ..."
"... "I have John Bolton who I would definitely say is a hawk. And I have other people that are on the other side of the equation," Trump has said . "Ultimately I make the decisions so it doesn't matter." ..."
President Donald Trump's recent choice of the relatively
unknown Congressman John Ratcliffe for Director of National Intelligence and his elevation
of Kelly Craft as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- despite concerns about her
inexperience -- illustrates the power vacuum within Trump's cabinet, and the opportunities this
opens up for interventionists like National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo.
The rash of remarkably unqualified and inexperienced candidates for top slots points to a
presidency that values personal loyalty to Donald Trump above the ability to govern
effectively. This atmosphere favors those with Washington insider status and the policy goals
to bring it to fruition, say defense analysts who spoke to TAC.
Trump's recent picks "fit the pattern of the eroding of competence which is particularly
happening in the national security apparatus," said Trita Parsi, associate professor at
Georgetown University, in an interview with TAC. These are "clearly people that are just
willing to go along with whatever the political agenda is."
Unfortunately, that agenda may be wielded now by the most experienced, and powerful senior
officials left standing -- Bolton and Pompeo -- whose aggressive foreign policies sometimes
clash with their president's.
"My view on this is that any appointment on Trump's foreign policy staff after the ascent of
Bolton will reflect Bolton's will," said Mark Perry, TAC senior writer and author of The
Pentagon's Wars. "Which is to say: if Kelly Craft meets with Bolton's approval, it's
because he views her as weak."
"My view on this is that any appointment on Trump's foreign
policy staff after the ascent of Bolton will reflect Bolton's will," said Mark Perry, TAC
senior writer and author of The Pentagon's Wars. "Which is to say: if Kelly Craft meets
with Bolton's approval, it's because he views her as weak."
Almost everyone else who originally held a senior national security job has now left the
Trump administration, including
the defense secretary, national security adviser, attorney general, FBI director, secretary of
state, White House chief of staff, secretary of Homeland Security, and director of the Secret
Service.
This week, the Senate confirmed multi-million dollar Republican donor Kelly Craft to replace
Nikki Halley, who left her post as ambassador to the United Nations at the end of 2018. Craft
was mostly absent from her previous position as Trump-appointed ambassador to Canada. Before
that she was appointed delegate to the UN by President George W. Bush, and headed her own
business advisory firm in Kentucky. That is where her resume seems to end. She has no other
government or foreign policy background, academic or professional, to speak of. This makes her
one of the least experienced people to ever hold the post.
"Craft's appointment as UN ambassador is just one more step towards the 'Trumpification' of
government functions, whether it's putting his unqualified family members in key White House
roles or rewarding countries that patronize his businesses with sweetheart deals," Emma
Ashford, a research fellow in defense and foreign policy for the Cato Institute, told
TAC.
"Rather than simply pointing out how unqualified Kelly Craft is for the United Nations
job, I think it would be wise for us to reconsider the idea of politically appointed
ambassadors entirely," Ashford said. "Is there really any ambassadorial appointment so
unimportant that it should be handled by a donor, rather than by experienced diplomats? The
whole donations-for-ambassadorships system is bad for U.S. diplomacy and national
security."
Given that John Bolton once suggested that if the United Nations building "lost 10 stories,
it wouldn't make a bit of difference," it is possible that the choice of Craft reflects the
Trump administration's disregard of the institution. Nothing says that better than putting an
entirely unqualified person in the job.
And it would also play into the hands of Pompeo and Bolton, who have already ensured that
Craft's position will be demoted from the president's cabinet and placed back under the
Secretary of State's purview, the way it was under President George W. Bush.
"Certainly, having an entirely inexperienced diplomat in the United Nations role will
probably empower Pompeo, and is reflective of Bolton's own antipathy towards international
organizations," said Ashford.
Inexperience in so many top national security slots is "going to make it easier to have a
non-fact based foreign policy, a profoundly confrontational foreign policy, that will please
John Bolton but that will not in any shape or form serve U.S. national interest," said Parsi,
who added that Bolton seems to be determined to "neutralize these positions."
Since Bolton joined Trump's cabinet, the Pentagon has begun referring
questions about troop deployments to the National Security Council, which is in his
purview. As TAC
reported previously, Bolton appeared to take a page from former vice president Dick
Cheney's playbook when he took
the highly unusual step of convening a meeting about a possible confrontation with Iran not at
the White House but at CIA headquarters. Bolton is an unapologetic Bush-era war hawk with
four decades of experience inside the Beltway, who has used his long career to advocate for
regime change in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran.
Like Craft, the new Pentagon chief and former Raytheon lobbyist Mark Esper is unlikely to
serve as a backstop to empty or wrongheaded proposals, particularly when there's so little
longevity within Trump's cabinet.
"We've seen people that push back being replaced with people without any capacity to push
back," said Parsi.
Trump's choice of Ratcliffe to replace Dan Coats as Director of National Intelligence was so
weak that the president ultimately withdrew his name from consideration on Friday. While the
man he would have replaced was a former Indiana senator, U.S. ambassador to Germany, and one of
Trump's least difficult Cabinet confirmations, Ratcliffe is a former U.S.
attorney who has engaged in some serious
résumé
inflation, and was only recently elevated to a seat on the House Homeland Security and
Judiciary committees.
Coats famously contradicted Trump on the threat posed by Russia and North Korea's
willingness to give up its nuclear arsenal, whereas Ratcliffe appears to have been chosen for
his Trump boosting questions at the Mueller hearing, a performance that thrilled
the president.
Ratcliffe apparently was surprised by the intensity of the reaction after his name was
floated. His credentials were so thin that it led some to question whether Trump can field a
bench and if anyone vets his picks before he announces them.
But an inexperienced DNI would allow Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to continue heavily
influencing the U.S. intelligence community, as he has done for over a year since leaving the
CIA, according
to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.
"Pompeo, who was Donald Trump's first CIA director, is now serving as a key intermediary
between Trump and the U.S. intelligence community, the officials say, a very unusual role for
the secretary of state, who is supposed to be a customer of the intelligence community, not its
master," The Intercept reported. "Pompeo has emerged as the administration's de
facto intelligence czar."
Not everyone shares the concern that a relative lack of experience means that a candidate
will be ineffective. Maryscott Greenwood, former chief of staff to the U.S. ambassador to
Canada during the Clinton administration, told TAC that applying that criticism to Craft
is "a reach."
"I think a better way to judge someone is by the work they do, so whether you're physically
sitting in the embassy in Ottawa or somewhere else, the better question is: are you doing the
job, are you advancing the goals of the country?" said Greenwood. "The narrative that she was
absent or didn't uphold her duties [as ambassador to Canada], that's not what I observed. I saw
her as a workaholic."
"It's not easy to be a Trump ambassador," she added. Due to Trump's "particularly
confrontational style," which "makes the job of diplomacy more challenging," it's particularly
impressive that Craft was able to "keep the relationship going extraordinarily well on behalf
of the U.S. and Canada" throughout the renegotiation of the trade deal and the "daily work of
solving border issues."
"Craft played a key role at a time when" the role of ambassador to Canada was particularly
difficult, said Greenwood.
It is also worth noting that Trump doesn't have much experience. And no matter how
aggressive the positions of his advisors, in the final analysis, as Trump frequently likes to
remind us, the commander in chief is his own man.
"I have John Bolton who I would definitely say is a hawk. And I have other people that
are on the other side of the equation," Trump has
said . "Ultimately I make the decisions so it doesn't matter."
Barbara Boland
is 's foreign policy and national security reporter. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC.
Recruiting or promoting dupes is a characteristic neocon activity. Find some nice-looking
cipher, surround him or her with whisperers and handlers, acclimatize them to saying and
doing as they're told.
The template is Quayle - Kristol back in the late eighties, but there are many more
recent.
First of all, Trump is a liar and also historically ignorant.
Second, he doesn't make a final decision if it concerns the Middle East:
his son in law, Kushner tells/ 'briefs,' let's say Trump on what is, which of course is
Kushner basically working as a lobbyist for Israel.
Who are we kidding?
That extreme Kushner and Trump's daughter Ivanka tell Trump the 'facts.'
Pompeo and Bolton are fine with that.
Do people who have been around really not know that the neo-cons are the reason the above
two war mongers got appointed?
As I look and read, I see Pompeo smiling too much and I know why:
the power and ego he's got now. Tell him I said he's a clown.
Look at hate filled Bolton. Tell him i'd destroy him in 2 minutes in a debate.
Now, compare all of the above characters to the dignified Russian or, say, the Jordanian
foreign ministers. See a difference? Yeah, the latter two practice diplomacy not crude
threats and misery making all over the world.
Why don't the moderate, realistic peace groups like J Street and Peace Now /Israel and
Peace Now/ USA not have a voice with the critters in the Congresses or in the white
house?
Oh, yeah, Kushner and Ivanka, his wife, daughter of 'our leader'- Trump.
I'm telling you, people all over the world are looking at the USA and calling it for what
it has become- clown city and a joke among diplomatic, civilized behaving nations and is
anti any peaceful solution.
See what i'm saying? Can you relate?
I have several documentaries on our US presidents and I have to say, your comments could
fit several them and the role of insiders and the family patronage systems that permeates
the entire country.
I am not a very bright fellow, but something tells me the country is not a disaster
because the current president is and remains in office.
The only pool of candidates Trump has left are those who are either poison, such as Bolton,
or else so far outside the pool of experienced people that their nomination represents the
only shot they'll ever have at such a position. After the examples of Coates, Kelly, and
Mattis, anyone who is actually qualified doesn't want to go anywhere near this
administration for fear of being permanently stained by their time in the pig-pen.
Appointing loyal amateurs would be an understandable strategy, especially for anyone
seeking policy outside the Washington Consensus. DC is full of people who are advancing
their own agendas and those of their clients, and who don't give a care for Trump or his
agenda.
But Trump doesn't choose appointees based on loyalty. Trump's own appointees think he's
a moron.
If there were a thought bubble over Craft's head, it would say "I really hope Israel
commits some nauseating atrocity against the Palestinians while I'm UN ambassador, because
then I get to go on TV and say that US support for Israel's right to self-defense will
never waver ... just like Nikki Haley got to do!" But for obvious reasons there is no
thought bubble over Craft's head.
Appoint a potted plant to most of these positions. These plants couldn't make things worse,
and only require watering every now and then. That is, they work cheap. I'd vote for a nice
pretty fern as president if I had the chance.
All or nothing diplomacy("my way or highway") is a politically correct term for imperial dictate
Notable quotes:
"... For the neocons infesting the Trump administration, that is a feature, not a bug. ..."
"... Agree but I think "my way or the highway" has been a fairly standard feature of American arrogance going back several decades. ..."
"... Bush senior and Clinton's state dept (Madeleine notsobright) were prime examples of "exceptionalism" and all that comes out of ray gun's NED. ..."
"... one realizes that what the Trump administration calls "strategists" are what regular folks call "morons". ..."
"... This is a very good assessment of a normal diplomatic give and take noticeably lacking here. The ironic part is that the greatest deal maker of all time can't make a deal because he considers every person on the other side of the table a mark. Trump actually believes to the core of his being that he can charm the world's pants off. Once they are naked, he can have his way with them. In fact, he considers them a fool for believing him in the first place. This formula has served him well and made him the most powerful man in the world. What worked for him here, won't work for him anymore on the world stage. While that says some terrible things about us, it is nice to know there are limits to this kind of behavior. The stakes are much higher and his opponents are smarter and more ruthless. ..."
"... I don't see him trying another strategy. This one has served him so well for so long, he's never going to change. When called into question, he always says, "We'll see." He thinks it's just a time factor. Eventually, they will come around. No one can long resist his charm offensive or so he thinks. ..."
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un meets with U.S. President Donald Trump during the Singapore summit June 12. NPR
reports on the current state of U.S.-North Korea "talks":
"The president still has faith" that Kim can be an effective negotiating partner, said one person closely familiar with U.S.
deliberations. The person asked not to be identified citing the sensitivity of the matter.
But elsewhere within the U.S. government, there is a widespread "loss of faith." The source said U.S. strategists are baffled
that the North Korean ruler has seemed unable to spur his country to keep what they see as his commitments.
The reported bafflement of "strategists" is a bit worrisome, because it suggests that these "strategists" haven't been paying
attention for the last 18 months. Kim didn't make the commitments they think he made, and so he isn't failing to "spur" anything.
As he and other North Korean government officials keep saying, they are waiting for the U.S. to change its approach from the maximalist
demands that the administration has been insisting on throughout this process. North Korea has been remarkably clear that they aren't
going to wait on the U.S. forever, and they have repeatedly mentioned that the end of this year was how long the administration had
to make the necessary change.
Meanwhile the Trump administration seems to have internalized its own propaganda about the extent of progress made with North
Korea, and that has created dangerous false expectations of what North Korea is supposed to do. North Korea knows it didn't commit
to doing anything yet, but the administration promotes the fiction that they have committed to disarm and need to "fulfill" those
commitments. The only way that there is going to be significant progress in talks with North Korea is if the administration recognizes
that its maximalism is a dead end and they abandon it. Unfortunately, because they have been lying to us and to themselves that they
are already making progress, they can't admit that they need to reduce their demands and offer North Korea something as an incentive
to make concessions. Trump's North Korea policy is stuck because the administration can't acknowledge that the one thing they insist
on getting–North Korean disarmament–is never happening.
One reason they can't acknowledge this is pride. After dragging Obama for his "terrible" deal with Iran, reneging on the JCPOA,
and claiming that any deal with North Korea would be even better than that one, Trump and his officials would have a hard time admitting
that they haven't even made a dent with their all-or-nothing, hard-line approach. Another reason is that hard-liners are hung up
on the belief that "maximum pressure" can force other states to do what they want, and so they assume it is only a matter of time
and sufficient pressure before North Korea caves. Changing their policy at this point would be an admission of failure they don't
want to make, and they refuse to admit failure as long they think that "maximum pressure" is going to deliver the goods. The reality
is that there has been significantly less pressure on North Korea over the last year, and even before that the pressure campaign
was not what made North Korea interested in talking. The Trump administration is waiting on something that will never occur, and
in the meantime they are frittering away their opportunity to reach a more modest arms control agreement. As usual, an all-or-nothing
approach to diplomacy leaves us with nothing.
This is a very good assessment of a normal diplomatic give and take noticeably lacking here. The ironic part is that the greatest
deal maker of all time can't make a deal because he considers every person on the other side of the table a mark. Trump actually
believes to the core of his being that he can charm the world's pants off. Once they are naked, he can have his way with them.
In fact, he considers them a fool for believing him in the first place. This formula has served him well and made him the most
powerful man in the world. What worked for him here, won't work for him anymore on the world stage. While that says some terrible
things about us, it is nice to know there are limits to this kind of behavior. The stakes are much higher and his opponents are
smarter and more ruthless.
I don't see him trying another strategy. This one has served him so well for so long, he's never going to change. When called
into question, he always says, "We'll see." He thinks it's just a time factor. Eventually, they will come around. No one can long
resist his charm offensive or so he thinks.
The extent of Israeli spying directed against the United States is a huge story that is
only rarely addressed in the mainstream media. The Jewish state regularly tops the list for ostensibly friendly countries that
aggressively conduct espionage against the U.S. and Jewish American Jonathan Pollard, who was imprisoned in 1987 for spying for
Israel, is now regarded as the most damaging spy in the history of the United States.
Last week I wrote about how
Israeli spies operating more-or-less freely in the U.S. are rarely interfered with, much less arrested and prosecuted, because there
is an unwillingness on the part of upper echelons of government to do so. I cited the case of Arnon Milchan, a billionaire Hollywood
movie producer who had a secret life that included stealing restricted technology in the United States to enable development of
Israel's nuclear weapons program, something that was very much against U.S. interests. Milchan was involved in a number of other
thefts as well as arms sales on behalf of the Jewish state, so much so that his work as a movie producer was actually reported to
be less lucrative than his work as a spy and black-market arms merchant, for which he operated on a commission basis.
That Milchan has never been arrested by the United States government or even questioned about his illegal activity, which was
well known to the authorities, is just one more manifestation of the effectiveness of Jewish power in Washington, but a far more
compelling case involving possible espionage with major political manifestations has just re-surfaced. I am referring to Jeffrey
Epstein, the billionaire Wall Street "financier" who has been arrested and charged with operating a "vast" network of underage girls
for sex, operating out of his mansions in New York City and Florida as well as his private island in the Caribbean, referred to
by visitors as "Orgy Island." Among other high-value associates, it is claimed that Epstein was particularly close to Bill Clinton,
who flew dozens of times on Epstein's private 727.
Alex Acosta (L) Jeffrey Epstein (R)
Epstein was arrested on July 8th after indictment
by a federal grand jury in New York. It was more than a decade after Alexander Acosta, the top federal prosecutor in Miami, who
is now President Trump's secretary of labor, accepted a plea bargain involving similar allegations regarding
pedophilia
that was not shared with the accusers prior to being finalized in court. There were reportedly hundreds of victims, some 35 of whom
were identified, but Acosta deliberately denied the two actual plaintiffs their day in court to testify before sentencing.
Acosta's intervention meant that Epstein avoided both a public trial and a possible federal prison sentence, instead serving
only 13 months of an 18-month sentence in the almost-no-security Palm Beach County Jail on charges of soliciting prostitution in
Florida. While in custody, he was permitted to leave jail for sixteen hours six days a week to work in his office.
Epstein's crimes were carried out in his $56 million
Manhattan mansion and in his oceanside villa in Palm Beach Florida. Both residences were equipped with hidden cameras and microphones
in the bedrooms, which Epstein reportedly used to record sexual encounters between his high-profile guests and his underage girls,
many of whom came from poor backgrounds, who were recruited by procurers to engage in what was euphemistically described as "massages"
for money. Epstein apparently hardly made any effort to conceal what he was up to: his airplane was called the "Lolita Express."
The Democrats are calling for an investigation of the Epstein affair, as well as the resignation of Acosta, but they might well
wind up regretting their demands. Trump, the real target of the Acosta fury, apparently did not know about the details of the plea
bargain that ended the Epstein court case. Bill and Hillary Clinton were, however, very close associates of Epstein. Bill, who flew
on the "Lolita Express"
at least 26 times , could plausibly be implicated in the pedophilia given his track record and relative lack of conventional
morals. On many of the trips, Bill refused Secret Service escorts, who would have been witnesses of any misbehavior. On
one lengthy trip
to Africa in 2002, Bill and Jeffrey were accompanied by accused pedophile actor Kevin Spacey and a number of young girls, scantily
clad "employees" identified only as "massage." Epstein was also a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation and was present at
the wedding of Chelsea Clinton in 2010.
With an election year coming up, the Democrats would hardly want the public to be reminded of Bill's exploits, but one has to
wonder where and how deep the investigation might go. There is also a possible Donald Trump angle. Though Donald may not have been
a frequent flyer on the "Lolita Express," he certainly moved in the same circles as the Clintons and Epstein in New York and Palm
Beach, plus he is by his own words roughly as amoral as Bill Clinton. In June 2016, one
Katie Johnson filed lawsuit in
New York claiming she had been repeatedly raped by Trump at an Epstein gathering in 1993 when she was 13 years old. In a 2002
New York Magazineinterview
Trump said "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy he's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful
women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
Selective inquiries into wrongdoing to include intense finger pointing are the name of the game in Washington, and the affaire
Epstein also has all the hallmarks of a major espionage case, possibly tied to Israel. Unless Epstein is an extremely sick pedophile
who enjoys watching films of other men screwing twelve-year-old girls the whole filming procedure smacks of a sophisticated intelligence
service compiling material to blackmail prominent politicians and other public figures. Those blackmailed would undoubtedly in most
cases cooperate with the foreign government involved to avoid a major scandal. It is called recruiting "agents of influence." That
is how intelligence agencies work and it is what they do.
That Epstein was perceived as being intelligence-linked was made clear
in Acosta's comments when being
cleared by the Trump transition team. He was asked "Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?" "Acosta
had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he'd had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut the non-prosecution
deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had 'been told' to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. 'I was told Epstein
belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone.'"
Questions about Epstein's wealth also suggest a connection with a secretive government agency with deep pockets. The New York
Timesreports that
"Exactly what his money management operation did was cloaked in secrecy, as were most of the names of whomever he did it for. He
claimed to work for a number of billionaires, but the only known major client was Leslie Wexner, the billionaire founder of several
retail chains, including The Limited."
But whose intelligence service? CIA and the Russian FSB services are obvious candidates, but they would have no particular motive
to acquire an agent like Epstein. That leaves Israel, which would have been eager to have a stable of high-level agents of influence
in Europe and the United States. Epstein's contact with the Israeli intelligence service may have plausibly come through his associations
with Ghislaine Maxwell, who allegedly served as his key procurer of young girls. Ghislaine is the
daughter of Robert Maxwell , who
died or possibly was assassinated in mysterious circumstances in 1991. Maxwell was an Anglo-Jewish businessman, very cosmopolitan
in profile, like Epstein, a multi-millionaire who was very controversial with what were regarded as ongoing ties to Mossad. After
his death, he was given a state funeral by Israel in which six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence listened while Prime
Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized
: "He has done more for Israel than can today be said"
Trump (left) with Robert Maxwell (right) at an event
Epstein kept a black
book identifying many of his social contacts, which is now in the hands of investigators. It included fourteen personal phone
numbers belonging to Donald Trump, including ex-wife Ivana, daughter Ivanka and current wife Melania. It also included Prince Bandar
of Saudi Arabia, Tony Blair, Jon Huntsman, Senator Ted Kennedy, Henry Kissinger, David Koch, Ehud Barak, Alan Dershowitz, John Kerry,
George Mitchell, David Rockefeller, Richard Branson, Michael Bloomfield, Dustin Hoffman, Queen Elizabeth, Saudi King Salman and
Edward de Rothschild.
Mossad would have exploited Epstein's contacts, arranging their cooperation by having Epstein wining and dining them while flying
them off to exotic locations, providing them with women and entertainment. If they refused to cooperate, it would be time for blackmail,
photos and videos of the sex with underage women.
It will be very interesting to see just how far and how deep the investigation into Epstein and his activities goes. One can
expect that efforts will be made to protect top politicians like Clinton and Trump and to avoid any examination of a possible Israeli
role. That is the normal practice, witness the 9/11 Report and the Mueller investigation, both of which eschewed any inquiry into
what Israel might have been up to. But this time, if it was indeed an Israeli operation, it might prove difficult to cover up the
story since the pedophile aspect of it has unleashed considerable public anger from all across the political spectrum.
Senator Chuck Schumer , self-described
as Israel's "protector" in the Senate, is loudly calling for the resignation of Acosta. He just might change his tune if it turns
out that Israel is a major part of the story.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected]
aanirfan.blogspot.com in an article entitled " Epstein , Trump, 9/11 ' has identified Epstein's links not only to Mossad
but to his business relationships with CIA controlled airlines and perhaps to the false flag attacks on 9/11 .According to Aangirfan
, Epstein is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The CIA and Mossad have strong
ties resulting from the efforts , according to the Wall Street Journal no less, of former CIA chiefs William Casey and James
Angleton . As Acosta has confirmed , Epstein has links to "intelligence " .
The presence of Ghislaine Maxwell is proof of Mossad's ownership of Epstein's kompromat operation. Ghislaine's father, Robert
Maxwell, created the Neva network -- a consortium of technology companies, banks, and Russian and Bulgarian organized crime
networks -- for his Mossad masters. Keeping up the family business, Ghislaine was running Epstein for the Israelis.
Speculation or scenario: the highest levels of the CIA and Mossad have been closely allied since the late 1940s (see especially
the role of James Angleton) and are pursuing common strategic objectives.
The New York Post remarked in March 2000:
"Epstein is an enigmatic figure. Rumors abound -- including wild ones about a career in the Mossad and, contrarily, the CIA."
Perhaps Epstein has been sponsored, funded, directed and protected by both agencies working in combination.
"Those blackmailed would undoubtedly in most cases cooperate with the foreign government involved to avoid a major scandal.
It is called recruiting "agents of influence." That is how intelligence agencies work and it is what they do."
But would not a single intelligence agency typically target and trap one isolated person, not a whole set of interconnected
people? That is, this is more like the way the P2 lodge worked in Italy, that is, a society.
With all the mystery surrounding how Epstein obtained such great wealth, I can't help but think it may be a global money
laundering operation connected to the global drug trade.
Books have been written about the CIA's involvement in cocaine and heroin distribution. Whether it's HW Bush and Iran Contra(cocaine)
and Bill Clinton with Mena, AR airport complicity in same or the explosion in poppy (HW's nickname just a coincidence ) production
in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion, drugs seem to connect all these dots and more.
And, let's not forget the Israeli "Art Student" operation that targeted DEA offices.
A way for Epstein to get out from under this with the CUFI crowd might be to point out Mary, mother of Jesus, was pregnant
out of wedlock at 14 so what's the big deal?
NYT and Bloomberg have been writing about the mysterious source of Epstein's wealth. Epstein's hedge fund is established
offshore and has a hush-hush list of "clients". He was once sued by a guy named Michael Stroll who said he lost all $450k of
his money investing with Epstein, and he told an interviewer that everyone thought Epstein "was some kind of genius, but I never
saw any genius, and I never saw him work. Anyone that wealthy would have to work 26 hours a day, Epstein played 26 hours a day."
Bloomberg estimated that at best his net worth is $77m, which obviously is not enough to support his lavish lifestyle with 12
homes, a private island, private jet, 15 cars.
Epstein was "let go" by Bear Sterns because of his involvement in an insider trading case involving Edgar Bronfman, whose
firm Seagram was in a hostile takeover bid of another firm. Bronfman, former president of World Jewish Congress, and his two
daughters are investors in NXIVM which was recently charged with sex trafficking and other corruptions. Bronfman and Les Wexner,
the single largest investor in Epstein's "hedge fund", were co-founders of the Zionist org. Mega. All these people are in one
way or another connected with Israel.
I suspect Epstein and Bronfman were in fact running an international sex trafficking-racketeering ring on behalf of Mossad.
That would explain his mysterious source of wealth. His little black book is rumored to include 1,500 names of who's who in
politics, business and arts, and includes royalty, several foreign presidents and a famous prime minister.
Acosta needs to show some integrity and resign. But of course, if he had any, he would never have signed that plea bargain
to begin with.
First Mueller, now Epstein, two chances for Barr to turn the Deep State inside out, upside down once and for all. Will he
do it? I have my doubts. William Barr's father, Donald Barr, was the one who recruited Jeffrey Epstein, a two time college dropout,
to be a calculus and physics teacher at the prestigious Dalton School in NYC when he was the headmaster there. Donald Barr,
born Jewish but "converted" to Catholicism, was later ousted by a group of "progressive" parents at Dalton for being too conservative.
But he was the one who gave Epstein the foot in the door. From there he got to teach the son of Bear Stern's CEO Ace Greenberg,
and was recruited by the latter to work at Bear Sterns.
I wouldn't count out the CIA here. It is telling that one of Epstein's havens was overseas, several of them. These are locations
where the CIA could legally operate. After collecting dirt, they could then funnel some of it selectively to the Israelis for
distribution so the CIA could maintain plausible deniability while having a wall of separation between themselves and the Mossad-picked
third party that leaked the info.
In fact, this is the most plausible scenario; it fits with everything we know: 1) "intelligence" reportedly told Acosta to
back off 2) Epstein has been linked to the CIA 3) some of these locations were overseas, giving the CIA a legal justification
for spying 4) these were largely American politicians and American allies 5) the CIA reportedly threatened Trump when he came
into office by implying they would leak stuff on him: the Micheal Wolfe book, Fire and Fury I believe it was, related a story
of Trump being pressured to set up a meeting with the CIA where he'd speak to them and, essentially, pledge loyalty to them
because they would be his enemies otherwise (that's treason, btw); Trump dutifully complied 6) Epstein's mysterious wealth and
property management would have attracted CIA attention long ago, meaning they should have been aware of this unless they helped
set it up, including the guy's fake wealth (a front to get close to the powerful) anyone got a tax return for this guy?
This smells like CIA-Mossad joint op. If it were solely Mossad, the CIA should have stepped in and broken up this guy's little
operation considering his targets. They should have followed up by either eliminating Epstein as a message to Mossad not to
leak any of their dirt or threatened Epstein with punishment if he leaked or continued his activities. Tellingly, they covered
for the guy.
Also, does this sorry state of affairs make it more likely that Trump will "Wag the Dog" on Iran? Would the Epstein arrest
have even happened if Trump had done Bibi's bidding and attacked Iran when the False Flag of the drone shoot down had been teed
up for him like a driver smacking a golf ball. Conspiracy Theories is all we have left in the crumbling Empire of Lust and Greed.
Perhaps I'm just paranoid.
Milchan was involved in a number of other thefts as well as arms sales on behalf of the Jewish state
One of many apparently.
The scum described here was rewarded with becoming the mayor of Jerusalem.
We've been involved in everything we've been asked to do [re Israel].
[Dad] went and he bought all of the equipment from the plant. It ended up being shipped to Israel. Because you know at
that time, there was a complete embargo from the United States, and what little [the Israelis] got– well Most of what
they got were smuggled in.Most of them were illegal, all the arms. That's what Teddy Kollek did. That was his job before
he became a mayor [of Jerusalem]. He was a master smuggler. And he was good. Oh was he good! [laughter]
The honey trap is one of the most powerful (and legitimate) ways to compromise public officials, including heads of state.
Epstein is almost certainly Mossad.
This has been the talk and pretty obvious conclusion now for some time. Of COURSE Epstein was/is a MOSSAD asset if not agent.
What's more his usefullness to them isn't over yet, especially if Trump is one of the names he has.
I think if Trump caves next false flag and has a go at Iran, it will imply that Trump is dirty and Epstein can prove it.
I'm saying MOSSAD could be behind Epstein going down now as it makes his blakmail potential an imperitive. Hopefully Trump is
clean and there are indications he is. If not then he just lost any ability to resist whatever the zippers now want of him.
The sort of influence Zionist "Israel" needs to wield and does requires exactly such an interconnected and multilayered stable
of highly placed assets. Redundancy built in and how else do you think they manage to control so much AND avoid accountability?
They cast a wide net. But you knew that I think.
@Tired
of Not Winning deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had "been told" to back off, that Epstein was above his pay
grade. "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone," he told his interviewers'
#4 Offshore Tax Schemes / Money Laundering
Deutsche Bank seems to be the Gordian Knot of financial filth and corruption. Epstein was a client of Deutsche Bank's 'special
services department' same as Trump and Kushner ..same Deutsche bank as already fined for money laundering.
Possible Epstein and whoever was behind him engaged in all of these. If congress is going to question Acosta .first question
should be who told him Epstein belonged to intelligence.
That 2002 New York piece Phil mentioned has some great tid-bits:
For more than ten years, he's been linked to Manhattan-London society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the mysteriously
deceased media titan Robert Maxwell
He is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Indicative of globalism, Zionism and Jewish group interest.
those close to him say the reason he quit his board seat at the Rockefeller Institute was that he hated wearing a suit.
Obviously a falsely contrived reason, wonder what the deal was here
"I invest in people – be it politics or science. It's what I do," he has said to friends. And his latest prize addition
is the former president [Bill Clinton].
Certainly suggestive of an intelligence operative mindset.
Before Clinton, Epstein's rare appearances in the gossip columns tended to be speculation as to the true nature of his
relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. While they are still friends, the English tabloids have postulated that Maxwell has
longed for a more permanent pairing and that for undetermined reasons Epstein has not reciprocated in kind. "It's a mysterious
relationship that they have," says society journalist David Patrick Columbia. "In one way, they are soul mates, yet they
are hardly companions anymore. It's a nice conventional relationship, where they serve each other's purposes."
Friends of the two say that Maxwell, whose social life has always been higher-octane than Epstein's, lent a little pizzazz
to the lower-profile Epstein. Indeed, at a party at Maxwell's house, her friends say, one is just as apt to see Russian
ladies of the night as one is to see Prince Andrew.
Another interpretation is that his combination with Ghislaine was bringing a bit too much public attention to Epstein and
his activities and therefore it was decided to let things die down a bit.
in 1976, he dropped everything and reported to work at Bear Stearns, where he started off as a junior assistant to a
floor trader at the American Stock Exchange. His ascent was rapid.
At the time, options trading was an arcane and dimly understood field, just beginning to take off. To trade options,
one had to value them, and to value them, one needed to be able to master such abstruse mathematical confections as the
Black-Scholes option-pricing model. For Epstein, breaking down such models was pure sport, and within just a few years he
had his own stable of clients. "He was not your conventional broker saying 'Buy IBM' or 'Sell Xerox,' " says Bear Stearns
CEO Jimmy Cayne. "Given his mathematical background, we put him in our special-products division, where he would advise
our wealthier clients on the tax implications of their portfolios. He would recommend certain tax-advantageous transactions.
He is a very smart guy and has become a very important client for the firm as well."
In 1980, Epstein made partner, but he had left the firm by 1981. Working in a bureaucracy was not for him
Obviously, important facts are being left out. He is a talented options analyst but they have him advising clients on investment
structures to save taxes? Why wouldn't they put him on principal trades for Bear if he was such an options whiz?
And why did he leave? Trading firms are notoriously NOT bureaucracies, and anyone with a talent for making money, especially
in the early 80s, would find few fetters. Whole story not given here.
In 1982, according to those who know Epstein, he set up his own shop, J. Epstein and Co., which remains his core business
today. The premise behind it was simple: Epstein would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion
or more. Which is where the mystery deepens. Because according to the lore, Epstein, in 1982, immediately began collecting
clients. There were no road shows, no whiz-bang marketing demos – just this: Jeff Epstein was open for business for those
with $1 billion–plus.
Getting clients in asset management is a cut-throat business. But Epstein did not even have to make a pretense of competing
for business?
His firm would be different, too. He was not here just to offer investment advice; he saw himself as the financial architect
of every aspect of his client's wealth – from investments to philanthropy to tax planning to security to assuaging the guilt
and burdens that large sums of inherited wealth can bring on.
the conditions for investing with Epstein were steep: He would take total control of the billion dollars, charge a flat
fee, and assume power of attorney to do whatever he thought was necessary to advance his client's financial cause. And he
remained true to the $1 billion entry fee. According to people who know him, if you were worth $700 million and felt the
need for the services of Epstein and Co., you would receive a not-so-polite no-thank-you from Epstein.
Minimum $1b invested, no track record by the asset manager, and he claims the clients give him carte blanche? This is not
normal wealth management.
Turning down giant new stakes just because they fall short of $1b? Nonsense. The name of the game on the buy side on Wall
Street is size, because that gives you negotiating power with the sell side.
Epstein runs a lean operation, and those close to him say that his actual staff – based here in Manhattan at the Villard
House (home to Le Cirque); New Albany, Ohio; and St. Thomas, where he reincorporated his company seven years ago (now called
Financial Trust Co.) – numbers around 150 and is purely administrative. When it comes to putting these billions to work
in the markets, it is Epstein himself making all the investment calls – there are no analysts or portfolio managers, just
twenty accountants to keep the wheels greased and a bevy of assistants – many of them conspicuously attractive young women
– to organize his hectic life. So assuming, conservatively, a fee of .5 percent (he takes no commissions or percentages)
on $15 billion, that makes for a management fee of $75 million a year straight into Jeff Epstein's pocket.
Epstein makes all the daily investment decisions on $15b, yet no one on the sell side knows him? In other words Epstein does
not invest in new issues. But new issues are the gravy for making money on the buy side – think IPO discount. This is not normal
asset management.
some have speculated that Wexner is the primary source of Epstein's lavish life – but friends leap to his defense. "Let
me tell you: Jeffrey Epstein has other clients besides Wexner. I know because some of them are my clients," says noted m&a
lawyer Dennis Block of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. "I sent him a $500 million client a few years ago and he wouldn't
take him. Said the account was too small. Both the client and I were amazed. But that's Jeffrey."
You can always trust the word of an M&A lawyer. They would never mislead anyone for advantage.
he found himself spending there [in Santa Fe], talking elementary particle physics with his friend Murray Gell-Mann,
a Nobel Prize–winning physicist and co-chair of the science board at the Santa Fe Institute.
his covey of scientists that inspires Epstein's true rapture. Epstein spends $20 million a year on them
Gerald Edelman won the Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine in 1972 and now presides over the Neurosciences Institute
in La Jolla. "Jeff is extraordinary in his ability to pick up on quantitative relations," says Edelman. "He came to see
us recently. He is concerned with this basic question: Is it true that the brain is not a computer? He is very quick."
Stephen Kosslyn, a psychologist at Harvard. Epstein flew up to Kosslyn's laboratory in Cambridge this year to witness
an experiment that Kosslyn was conducting and Epstein was funding. Namely: Is it true that certain Tibetan monks are capable
of holding a distinct mental image in their minds for twenty minutes straight?
Epstein has a particularly close relationship with Martin Nowak, an Austrian biology and mathematics professor who heads
the theoretical-biology program at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Nowak is examining how game theory can
be used to answer some of the basic evolutionary questions – e.g., why, in our Darwinian society, does altruistic behavior
exist?
Danny Hillis, an MIT-educated computer scientist whose company, Thinking Machines, was at the forefront of the supercomputing
world in the eighties, and who used to run R&D at Walt Disney Imagineering
An intelligence operative would certainly have no interest in cultivating, buying or blackmailing scientists in the fields
of nuclear physics, controlling human behavior or supercomputers!
And by the way, the need to explain "altruism" in terms of game theory is a tip-off that Epstein and Nowak have no spiritual
life and cannot comprehend of it in other people. No surprise to find "do what thou wilt" as his guiding principle.
Strangely enough, given his scientific obsessions, he is a computer-phobe and does not use e-mail.
Before taking a big position, Epstein will usually fly to the country in question. He recently spent a week in Germany
meeting with various government officials and financial types, and he has a trip to Brazil coming up in the next few weeks.
On all of these trips, he flies alone in his commercial-jet-size 727.
Friends of Epstein say he is horrified at the recent swell of media attention around him
He has never granted a formal interview, and did not offer one to this magazine, nor has his picture appeared in any
publication.
The final straws. If he's not an intelligence operative, he's doing everything he can to give that impression!
He "flies alone." LOL! Poor Jeffrey, he so ronery!
When Bob Maxwell died at sea or disappeared it turned out that he had used or stolen every penny of ALL the pensions of his
employees .which were never recovered. After her father was given a state funeral in Israel (not England where he and his family
lived and worked) there followed a 2 year court case in which his 6 children were finally excused from any responsibility for
these pensions, despite inheriting his money and two of them working in his companies.
And now Ghislaine turns up as a US socialite, multi-decade pedophile procurer and international human trafficker. Nice family
.nice values! ...
Since the Little SAINT James pedo-island
that was allegedly owned by Jeffery Epstein did not have an airport (the closest one being
Curil E King airport in St. Thomas (about ten miles away)) that
means the 'guests' would either have to take a boat trip or a helicopter trip. Since Little SAINT James does have a
clearly marked helicopter landing site at the north central east part of the island (when viewed on google maps in satellite
view) one would suspect that is how these so-called 'guests' arrived at this pedo-island.
Those activities are not mutually exclusive. It could be #5: All of the above. We all know how Mossad operates. Nothing is
beyond them. The end justifies the means.
Acosta is a distraction .and possibly innocent since he did what he was told which was to go easy on an intelligence asset.
Forget the small fry and concentrate on the real criminals please.
Senator Chuck Schumer, self-described as Israel's "protector" in the Senate, is loudly calling for the resignation of
Acosta. He just might change his tune if it turns out that Israel is a major part of the story.
Schumer would already have been tipped of if is was an Israeli operation. It's an anti Trump thing.
The fact that the case has been moved to the Southern District of New York validates your cynicism.
Has the Only Democracy in the Middle East decided to sacrifice Epstein (he can be sprung later, his jig was up anyway) so
that an Epstein circus can replace Russiagate?
From renfro, the following great point:
"If congress is going to question Acosta .first question should be who told him Epstein belonged to intelligence."
, renfro! Thanks & my respect.
Because I have special enthusiasm for renfro's advice to "Congress," such will not fly with "congress."
Quote: "It will be very interesting to see just how far and how deep the investigation into Epstein and his activities goes."
Reply: We'll get a glistening kabuki show, with lots of wailing [walls], thunder and lightening, twists and turns, but, in
the end [as this case will go on and on – Harvey Weinstein, anyone?] people will forget about it.
I fear that this is all rapidly turning into a modified limited hangout. A whole lot of dirt will be inconclusively exposed
and, even though everyone will have a pretty good idea of what happened, there won't be enough will to do anything about it.
The caveat will be when the financial system finally implodes. A horde of jobless and desperate people will rapidly lose
their patience for being governed by a bunch of incompetent pedophile oligarchs, but until then everyone will just go with the
flow.
@Rabbitnexus
ut it looks more like a millionaire club. Intelligence agencies prefer to use secretaries and other less visible people as spies.
I would look for some association of friends of Israel, something that has lots of money, wants lots of power, spies on people,
both enemies and friends, and has some special love for Israel.
I maybe wrong, but this does not seem to me to be a single intelligence agency of any country. It operates in an age old
method of a secret society, like mafia or masons. It is neither mafia nor masons, but some that especially likes to help Israel
and probably created it. I guess there are such friends of Israel organizations, several.
In social science it is often assumed that people are selfish. The attempt to show that altruism contributes positively to
the prospects for survival and reproduction is important in defeating the presumption of underlying selfishness. It's not a
very deep idea. If ten people carry a gene that causes one of them to throw himself on a hand-grenade, thereby saving the other
nine, that gives the gene a better chance of being passed along than if the grenade goes off and most or all of the carriers
are killed. If interested, see the book Evolution of the Social Contract by Brian Skyrms.
First a question: who says the telephone numbers were the sort only an intimate or ultimate insider would have? Queen Elizabeth's
would surely have had to be the Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Sandringham or Balmoral switchboard.
Then there is what a sleazy or dangerous guy like Epstein might be expected to do, namely toss in a whole lot of names (with
or without true up to date direct line numbers) to confuse and provide diversion and cover. Cute though isn't that he was supposed
still to be using an old fashioned address book in the 21st Century rather than an encrypted or at least password protected
smartphone.
The Palm Beach mansion Epstein owned was rigged with hidden cameras in some of the guest bedrooms according to an article
I read a couple of years back.
Im glad we have forums like this so the word can get out: honeypot operations are not a thing of just the KGB/Cold War past,
but of the Soros/intel orgs/globalist/Establishment present.
Future politicians and wealthy businesspersons need to be aware of this. The Bible has a great old verse that goes something
like, "Be sure your sins will find you out".
"Pedophilia"? Has anyone accused Epstein of mistreating pre-pubescent girls? I don't think so. If Mr. Giraldi wants to deplore
what Epstein is accused of, fine. But don't try to confuse us by suggesting that he attacked children rather than underage teens.
@follyofwar
even Israel understand this would not be regime change business as usual.
U.S. war gamers for years have been saying there's no way the U.S. could significantly "win" the war. It would surely drive
gas prices way up, and wake up the American public, creating a probably insurmountable political problem for Trump. Israel is
liable to get pelted from all sides -- Hezbollah has promised to attack in the event of war, and there are probably ways of
striking from Syria and Iran. Then there are the wild cards of Russia and China. No one knows for sure what Putin would do if
Iran were attacked, but he could certainly turn Israel into a parking lot very quickly if he wanted to.
Well founded scepticism. Still, now we know the extent of what Bernie Madoff got away with perhaps someone who was clever
and charming and appealed to those who wouldn't have invested with Madoff just might have put together enough billion dollar
portfolios to be able, as long as he managed his tax affairs well to become very rich during the 80s. It would be interesting
to know how he handled the October 1988 melt down.
One aspect of this entire Epstein Talmudic child abuse saga that really p*sses me off is the active participation of the
IRS. It was the same with Madoff and Maxwell. None of these talmudic ponzi's could have gotten off the ground if these gangsters
had been correctly filing all the correct tax forms like all the other goy schmucks.
Since 2012, with the Statute of Limitations retroactively extended 3 years to a total of 6 years backwards to 2006, all undeclared
foreign bank accounts of US persons or green card holders on IRS FBAR forms (Foreign Bank Account Report), and since 2012 form
8948 (Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets), which is even more intrusive, face IRS penalties of 50% of the highest
annual balance, and many tax sinners have been forced to pay more in taxes than these bank accounts ever contained. This is
the tip of the iceberg compared to jewish charity and foundation and estate fraud.
Epstein supposedly was "gifted" the NY mansion from his "mentor" at the defunct and fraudulent money changer Bear Stearns
for what must have been more than 50 Million. Rick Wiles drilled down in detail into this gift on
Thursday .
These kinds of shenanigans, like flying "friends" around the world to your various child abuse temples in your private jets,
are taxable gifts. In fact double taxed, taxed first as income and second with the gift tax. The Lolita Express could never
be declared as a business expense either.
The entire rotten affair stinks on every level and it gets more putrid at every layer of talmudic control is peeled bank.
At each level more Jews and Zionists come wiggling out and scurrying off to disappear from social and dinosaur media. But also
as each layer gets peeled bank we get closer to the core, which with ever more certainty is ritual child sacrifice used for
talmudic control.
Forget the small fry and concentrate on the real criminals please.
It's going to be difficult
Maurene Comey, one of the lead prosecutors who is handling the Epstein case, happens to be James Comey's daughter, the ex
FBI boss.
It remains to be seen if she will be giving Bill Clinton special treatment, just like her father gave to Hillary's "lock her
up".
Moreover, Judge Berman who preside the case, happens to be also a Clinton appointee (in 1998).
In 1982, according to those who know Epstein, he set up his own shop, J. Epstein and Co., which remains his core business
today. The premise behind it was simple: Epstein would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion
or more. Which is where the mystery deepens. Because according to the lore, Epstein, in 1982, immediately began collecting
clients. There were no road shows, no whiz-bang marketing demos – just this: Jeff Epstein was open for business for those
with $1 billion–plus.
The fly in the ointment of this carefully cultivated cover story:
"Statistics published in Forbes magazine's annual survey of America's billionaires expose this little known but shocking
reality. In 1982 there were 13 billionaires; in 1983 15″
There's no need for anything so crude as either the head of the CIA or FBI reporting directly to the Mossad when both agencies
are riddled from top to bottom with de facto Israeli espionage agents.
It's a Fool's Errand to think you can solve Epstein like a puzzle. Most, like Giraldi, are engaged in bias confirmation.
That isn't to say his speculations are entirely wrong but that we're all part of the play in one way or another.
In my view timing is rarely if ever coincidental. That seems glaringly obvious here. The Epstein scandal was resurrected
now for a reason. I suspect that like the Academic Admissions scandal the Permanent Government is throwing its weight around.
Warning (once again) that it can inflict casualties if exposing its 2016 malefactions is taken too far.
Weinstein served the same function -- with poor Meryl Streep the Sgt. Schultz headliner.
Put yourself in the mind of the various filth (e.g. Brennan) implicated in attempting to throw the election to Hillary and,
failing that, frame-up and destroy the duly elected POTUS. They think they're entitled to a pass given all they've turned a
blind eye to over the years.
Epstein's arrest strikes me as a shot across the bow in the context of the upcoming IG Report/Durham Investigation. I'm not
picking on Giraldi but all of his fans here should note he's been Mumble Mouth at best on those malefactions. Nor am I saying
that isn't the wise move for him.
The scandal that needs to be buried is that they built a global surveillance (and storage) apparatus, including of the American
people. There was widespread, systematic abuse of it during the Obama Administration ('000s of people). Whatever limitations
there were, effectively Mutually Assured Destruction with the establishment factions keeping an eye on each other, collapsed
as they all united to stop Trump.
Epstein, like Weinstein and the Academic Admissions scandal, is both distraction and a warning to the Governing and Business
Classes -- keep you heads down and mouths shut about these powerful intelligence/national security entities.
I generally think waiting to see how matters fall out is a very good idea. But when I read the information of Mr. Acosta's
interview, I sank a bit. Because it strongly suggested vested interest by the government – not to get to the truth.
That even the circus that usually comes to surround even credible cases will so muddy the waters as to avoid a rendering
of what actually took place.
And given how compromised the collusion matter is was or will continue to be – the stakes may be higher here such that muddying
the waters will be some relief for those involved.
Myth of brilliance has been created to explain origin of his wealth . But even that shit was not enough , more myths had
to be created like capacity of having brilliant discussions with Nobel laureate ( Physics) or with great educators , and with
world renowned economist .
I guess authorities can get away with saying what F lies they can say until it blows up on their faces . Jew thinks goym
are stupid , so tell them whatever come to mind like having a great autonomous brain that doesn't depend on education or training
or publicly visible job to figure out the finances , economy, hard computer , physical and cognitive sciences and earning millions
,
while busy with
1 taking nude picture and storing them in 3-4 different areas
2 ferrying big guns from 3 different continents to Orgy Islsnd
3 Getting their intimate information , charting them connecting them and storing them
4 having parties with semi nude girls but attended by celebrities
5 holding message parkour parties from girls procured from shanty , trailer park ,
6 having serial girl friends
– there are more .
Oh yeah!!! No wonder people under pressure , lack of information , from removal of connecting dots , undue respect for glory
money power , fear for being seen as ' naysayer ' or pessimist or low IQ uninformed , and fear of public ridicule can believe
or can feign to believe the wildest whoopers / lies/ plaint shit dished out by the upper echelon of the society .
( then we wonder why people believe in UFO , big foot ,
, personal angels , apparitions, or America is a force for good )
Epstein in my opinion is a mossad officer whose agenda is to compromise zio/US politicians for the benefit of Israel and
in this he is just one of many in the zio/US and in fact the zio/US gov is infested with dual Israeli citizens whose first and
only loyalty is to Israel.
Read the book Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen about the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel and the US government to see
how intertwined the mossad and the CIA are and remember the joint Israeli and zio/US gov attack on the WTC on 911, the zionists
rule America!
"CIA and the Russian FSB services are obvious candidates, but they would have no particular motive to acquire an agent like
Epstein."
This is an assertion with nothing to back it up. The CIA, in particular, has every reason to use an 'Epstein' for its nefarious
purposes as it IS the deep state or at least a major part of it.
The CIA owns the drug trade in Afghanistan and Mena, Arkansas can easily be connected to CIA activities along with gun running
in Mexico. The CIA is the official criminal organization within the US gov't and it went rogue decades ago. It can afford to
have multiple 'Epstein' clones running around to make sure it can control the US political class to not investigate its activities
too closely.
The CIA and Israel are indistinguishable from each other. Israel runs US foreign policy via the CIA and their own Mossad.
Come on, Phil Giraldi. Do you believe in an independent American justice system? What a joke. It's corrupt to the bone. Weinstein,
Epstein, Maxwell, Adelson, Saban, Koch you name it, have America in their pocket like Sharon used to say. During a furious beef
between Sharon and Shimon Peres, Sharon turned toward Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me Americans will do
this and will do that. I want to tell you something obvious, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people,
control America, and the Americans know it."
Could anyone but an intelligence agency get away with all of the following: 1) harassing witnesses (forcing their cars off
the road public highways), 2) searching the trash of police officers in an attempt to find dirt on the officers and 3) obtaining
a sweet heart plea bargain when the police had dozens of victims (who didn't even know each other) telling the exact same story
and ready to testify – as well as photos of nude adolescents seized in a search.
Who could have done such things and got away with it.
Epstein must have been an operative. The only question is: for whom did he work?
Gasp!!! Are you suggesting sweet, innocent Monica was blowing Slick Willie for reasons other than his taking advantage
of her?
In his book Gideon's Spies the late Welsh author Gordon Thomas claimed Mossad had tapes of the same for blackmail
reasons. However, this has never been confirmed.
Epstein will "cop a plea" and avoid a trial. That is certain.
A couple of things I'd like to ask the brilliant Epstein: Why did you engage in your nefarious sexual activity in New York
State and Florida? The "age of consent" in both states is 18. In New Jersey, PA and other states, it's 16. Now US federal law
prohibits sex between people 12 to 16 if one of the participants is 4 years or more older than the other. The law says "between"
not inclusive of 16. So 16 might be OK. That's young enough.
Also Jeffrey, why didn't you take your "Lolita Express" to Tel Aviv? It's legal in Israel and no one checks up of the actual
ages of the "working girls." And most are the tall blond/blue and slim types from Eastern Europe.
"Pedophile" is incorrect, as a commenter noted. The age cutoff is 13 for pedophilia. DSM-5. These escapades comprise different
serious felonies. However, the Epstein colleagues can rest easy, if Rush's instinct about prosecuting Hillary is correct. Rush
has said that prosecuting Hillary will not happen, because it would "roil" the nation. Same here. I expect to see a lot of MSM
passive voice, and intransitive verbs, but no roiling. "The car drove off the side of the bridge."
Asimov's father once wrote a book called "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man." Hmm .
More seriously, did it ever occur to you that someone might want to know your source before accepting your claim that Mueller
"supposedly classified Epstein as an informant"? Supposed by whom?? Eh????
believes Epstein allegedly preyed on Araoz when she was 14 because she was vulnerable.
"She had just transferred to a new school and didn't know anybody," attorney Kimberly Lerner said in an interview. "She
didn't have a father. Her mother was very poor. She was from a single-parent home. She was really struggling, and she wanted
to be a model and an actress. He absolutely preyed upon the most vulnerable."
@Lou123
n Ring' which supposedly was providing child prostitutes to high level US politicians who in turn were then being blackmailed
by the existence of surreptitious recordings having been made of these incidents by US intelligence agencies.
The below newspaper article explains what ultimately happened to the lead investigator of the case. Gary Caradori had been
hired by the Nebraska state legislature to find out what had actually transpired regarding the alleged Nebraska based ring.
Needless to say his investigation was unexpectedly 'cut short'.
What if .Acostoa is just a stooge, In fact he probably insisted on SOME jail time here. Otherwise the rest of the US "justice"
system could care less. Even NYC is complicit. It's a snow job of theater, this democracy is. It's a joke. It only looks like
a democracy on tv.
Mossad, CIA, FBI, MI5, who cares? All of these are criminal enterprises, just like the governments providing them cover and
"legitimacy".
Really interesting aspect of any elite in-fighting is that it exposes an "uncomfortable truth" that there is only one elite
running the show. That there is only Republicratic party, which regularly organizes (for the benefit of sheeple still believing
in "democracy") puppet shows called elections, where ostensibly Democrats battle Republicans. In fact, both are just two hands
of the same puppet master. That's why the same criminals are prominent at all "Republican" and "Democratic" functions.
The other thing that the story of that Epstein character clearly shows is that all those "respectable people" are nothing
more than rich criminals, and the only reason they aren't in jail is that they have enough money to get away with any crime.
@Talha
refully scripted to identify girls who could be vulnerable to manipulation, have a chaotic family life, need money, need social
connections for career advancement . The female procurer would report to Epstein and receive instructions to abandon or continue
to recruit the "candidate". A female procurer is used as she will not arouse suspicion in a young girl. These are simple techniques
that have been used for centuries worldwide. A father must cultivate a close relationship with his daughter, know when she is
OK or not OK, and most importantly be an example of a quality man that his daughter will compare to every man she meets(being
overprotective merely makes her more vulnerable).
Meh. Get ready for a tidal wave of MSM articles talking about how the deranged, alt-right internet conspiracy theorists are
having a field day with the Epstein case, after which your average American moron will be programmed to just smirk and roll
his eyes whenever the facts touched on in this article are brought up.
Ms. Aroaz's father was deceased before she met the female procurer
Well, then I take back what I said – obviously can't blame a dead man for not being there.
A father must cultivate a close relationship with his daughter, know when she is OK or not OK, and most importantly be
an example of a quality man that his daughter will compare to every man she meets
I don't know if Giraldi is a plant or not. However, the first law of understanding "intelligence agents" or ex spooks is
to always be suspicious of everyone. The group he belongs too seems legitimate enough but we have been set up before. I've be
reading Giraldi a long time and he has a similar "theme" in every piece but he also leaves small things out that should be in
his articles. The Devil is in the Details and man with his experience should be "Detailed Oriented."
He should know about Epstein and Muller and a few other things since this is the stock and trade of all intelligence agencies.
The interesting thing about this case is, the left wants it exposed because they think it'll take down Trump, the right wants
it exposed because they think it'll take down Bill Clinton. My guess is, more Dems will go down than Republicans. Trump was
a Democrat and a big supporter of Clintons and Chuck Schumer before he decided to run as a GOP in 2016. He could've gone either
way.
Sex scandals tend to plague the left, especially sexual perversions like porn, prostitution, child sex or gay sex. It's coz
the left is dominated by Jews who are prone to sexual perversion, and also because liberals believe feelings and passion trump
all, anything you do is not your fault as long as you are just following your feelings.
One reason Trump is so pro-Israel and hell bent on attacking Iran could be because the Jews have something on him, which
is not too hard since he's been in business with them for a lifetime and is as unctuous and unscrupulous as any of them. They
might be getting impatient with him on Iran and wants someone who can get the job done like Mike Pence to take over. Epstein
could take down both Clinton and Trump, Clinton has outlived his usefulness to them since Hillary didn't win, he'll be the sacrificial
lamb while they take out Trump for Pence.
Republic asked the following critical question which should not be cast away:
"If Epstein worked for Mossad, why wasn't he tipped off in Paris not to return to the US?"
! Mossad deception is sophisticated & patterns of telling a lie upon another improved lie ar characteristic.
Also, Mossad's implemented practices/techniques are adaptable to circumstances which seem supportive of what dumb goyim consider
"justice served," but they actually benefit Israel.
A thought. I figure Epstein knew what fate awaited him prior to landing at Teterboro Airport tarmac.
Well, Giraldi did work there and would have heard people complaining about the presence and influence of Israeli spies. Colonel
Kiatowoski's book about the presence of Israeli spies in the Pentagon made it clear Pentagon personnel resented the Israeli
spies but could do nothing about it.
@Talha
ing to a recently divorced man whose x-wife hates him (nothing new), and who has two teenage daughters. The x has poisoned the
daughters against him, (nothing new), and because he was trying to be strident with his elder daughter vis-a-vis drugs, (nothing
new), he now is not allowed to have any contact with them via the skewed courts, (nothing new).
They're doing a Weimar regime redux. That was the apex of their heyday, when the children of Germany were their playthings,
and Berlin was a giant brothel- girls and boys for sale, especially the ones whose fathers had died in their holocaust
that was WWI.
@j2
has maybe 10 Israeli immigrants or American Jews who work for him. Each has 10-15 American Jews who can be called upon. So it's
a wide network.
You're right that clerks secretaries accountants have great access to information. But the Israeli system is widespread.
Plus, the information needn't always come from Jews.
It really does exist. There's an Israeli who hosts sabbath dinners in Los Angeles. He invites American Jews to be briefed
on what's going on in Israel. I'm positive he also recruits agents in place he spots at those dinners. Guests who have no access
to anything useful at least get to feel they're participating in the cause.
@AnonFromTN
he only reason they aren't in jail is that they have enough money to get away with any crime.
True. And this Epstein coverage is bringing out more nooks and crannies of how the really rich control systems for their
own benefit.
Like why was Epsteins tax rate on his NY mansion only 0.6% .why is Bill de Blasio tax rate on his mansion only 0.2% ..when
other NY'ers taxrate is 12%.
@ChuckOrloski
howed the original twelve members in indecent poses . At the entrance to the abbey, there was an inscription which read Fay
ce que voudras – do what thou wilt – a term which Aleister Crowley borrowed nearly 200 years later. "
Ben Franklin likely would have been a prominent visitor to Little St. James, just as he was to
West Wycombe in his day.
Thomas Paine too.
There is regular sex and "deviation", pornography, pedophilia
There is drugs, illegal and legal, hard and soft
Then there is finance, always pimping, always on exploitation, abuse of minors, as young as not yet born, globally, and to
be comitted legally. Pedophilia and drugs are soft core, barely leveling at the sock suspenders of our financiers.
A few hundred of the top tier Wall Street-ers belong in jail, as rats eating their own tail, they only can be administered
there. Starting with Mnuchin. Epstein should be let alone, so he can decoy a little longer, and await his turn, pecking order
obliges. Ah, the public sector, the ones with faces, real fungi are minding the dark.
Linked on this same site today, Michael Hudson, seems to attribute Empire and financial capitalism, debt, the demise of the
dollar, to Trump. ?. Of all men, another scripted clown gets the blame. The shredding is spoiling the carpet.
If unz.com is so willingly pointing out the third liners, as Maya sacrifices to the deities in the shades, then there you
have one more reason the rag is impervious to censorship.
Gardner's and retail store clerks have personal phone numbers of the rich and famous. For instance, clerks at high
end retail clothing stores are supposed to cultivate shoppers on a personal level so they can call them up with the great news
of items they'd like to buy.
Actors producers directors numbers and home addresses can be obtained from people who work at their agents accountants PR
and attorney offices
Police departments have access to all phone numbers. Most of the Find a Number websites don't have the private number of
celebrities. But there are plenty of people who can access all the cell phone records.
How to get away with blackmailing without blackmailing.
First, you need to recruit people in. Have lots of massive parties at your spacious home for wealthy men. Have lots of women
mostly teens and under aged.
Sooner or later there will be some mingling going on. Some billionaire will get handsy and end up in a room with a girl ..and
hidden cameras.
Epstein informs him later the girl was really 15, but offers him a nice, neat way to buy silence: a large allocation to his
hedge fund, which charges 5% ..with power of attorney for himself.
To ease the pain for the black mailee Epstein puts the money in something as safe as treasury notes or money market fund.
Then Epstein collects his 'fees' ..x millions on the interest from treasury notes or etc..
Soooo no traceable blackmail payoff checks or wire transfers from his fellow pedos.
Epstein may also try this on other important political figures, mayors, prosecutors, etc. He doesnt blackmail them to 'invest'
in his fund but has them in his pocket.
The evidence would probably be in a deposit box in his offshore Caribbean bank.
One reason Trump is so pro-Israel and hell bent on attacking Iran could be because the Jews have something on him, which
is not too hard since he's been in business with them for a lifetime and is as unctuous and unscrupulous as any of them.
They might be getting impatient with him on Iran and wants someone who can get the job done like Mike Pence to take over.
Epstein could take down both Clinton and Trump, Clinton has outlived his usefulness to them since Hillary didn't win, he'll
be the sacrificial lamb while they take out Trump for Pence.
Just what I was going to write, but you got there first.
Thank you very much. pedophilia stops at the victims 13th birthday. Then it's various degrees of molestation of a minor .
It's usually 13 and 14, then 15. Then 16 and 17. In some states the age of consent is 16. Epstein's activities weren't just
molestation of minors. They were procuring for prostitution as well.
I have been meaning to ask this for a while, Dr. Giraldi, let’s say stuff you write about Israel is all true, you are ex-CIA,
then can we assume there are many like you or is that not the case? If that’s the case, then why none of them stand up and oppose?
Or are they too afraid of standing up for their country?
There are at least nine factions in the CIA concerning Israeli politics:
1. anti-Israel for emotional reasons (instinctive hostile feelings towards Jews, Judeophobia)
2. anti-Israel for ideological reasons (reasoned opposition towards Judaism and Zionism as doctrines)
3. anti-Israel for strategic reasons (bad for long-term American interests)
4. pro-Israel for emotional reasons (warm feelings towards Jews)
5. pro-Israel for ideological reasons (for instance, Christian Zionists)
6. pro-Israel for occult reasons (the world’s most powerful secret society mandates support as part of a grand mystical scheme)
7. pro-Israel for reasons of personal self-interest (issues concerning bribery, blackmail, careerism, etc.)
8. pro-Israel for strategic reasons (good for long-term American strategic interests)
9. pro-Israel for strategic reasons AND hostile to Jews (Jewish nationalists provide a counterweight to Jewish leftists in
the Diaspora, divide and conquer tactics)
Since the late 1940s, the pro-Israel factions in the CIA have easily dominated the anti-Israel (or Israel-skeptical) factions.
By the way, most CIA employees, including many high level employees, don't have a full understanding of what is going on
in the CIA, including knowledge of the most influential players and operations and their connections.
"... Timing is indeed everything. Russiagate set the precedent for lawfare to become a normal part of the political process and I'd fully expect Trump to maximize it to his own advantage in the run up to 2020. ..."
"... Lolitagate may be targeting the Clintons and you are probably right that the Clintons need not drag down someone like Warren simply because of party association. ..."
"... It will be interesting to see who will be the ultimate targets. It was a travesty that in the original case Epstein was the only person charged, unless I missed something. It's obvious that there had been a facilitating organization that he was running and boatloads of cash coming and going. No curiosity about that? ..."
Timing is (just about) everything, including within the art of public swamp draining.
I'm not familiar with the pace of legal proceedings of this nature through the US Court
system, however Trump will be in an advantageous position if Barr's processes are timed to
result in convictions and penalties being handed out to various well known DNC and IC
luminaries immediately before the 2020 election date.
The mistake would be to rely on any convictions of the 2016 players to discredit the DNC
candidate of 2020. The Clintons, et al, are current era irrelevancies or indeed parodies, and
they and proof of long gone conspiracies would be seen as separate issues to whatever the
Democrat candidate, eg., Elizabeth Warren, can credibly promise for 2020-24.
Trump will still have to fight 2020, not re run 2016.
I think the answer to the above question is 'yes' within the context that ever action the
WH takes from now on in, be it relating to Epsteins or Iranians, will be with the 2020
outcome as the prime determinant.
Timing is indeed everything. Russiagate set the precedent for lawfare to become a normal
part of the political process and I'd fully expect Trump to maximize it to his own advantage
in the run up to 2020.
Lolitagate may be targeting the Clintons and you are probably right that the Clintons
need not drag down someone like Warren simply because of party association.
However, I'd bet Barr can be relied upon to do plenty of damage to the Dems which
will affect voters next year. It depends how high up the Russiagate blowback goes. I'd
not expect any Dem candidate to beat Trump if the guts of the coup plot spill out in public,
especially if St. Obama is implicated - that would be a dagger to the heart.
This is why I found it interesting to see the Strzok-Page texts info the
Favored Fox News Channel had, referred to in Larry's last post. I'd expect
more of the same building to a crescendo at the most opportune time. Trump is a ruthless SOB
and I expect his revenge will be sweet.
Trump is a very smart and ruthless SOB, but his ill fated Inaugural Address declaration of
war on the Swamp demonstrated that his sense of time and timing was off at least at the start
of his Presidency. By now, years later, his enemies will have taught him well and he will
return the favor.
Lawfare ? It sounds good, until the voters figure out that some of it is nothing more than
abuse of the legal system in the pursuit of the corrupt by the corrupt, or until African
National Congress lawyers begin offering their services pro bono.
Certainly whatever Barr produces will be levered against the DNC to the last ounce of
weight by the pro Trump media, although to be effective it must be configured to match the
attributes of the eventual candidate - the best will be saved until last. Dear old Joe, on
his merits, need not worry about that.
I think the DNC will have a clean out of anyone who has ever stood within a mile of even
possible witnesses in Barr's proceedings. Changing their brand will prove far harder - there
will be no New DNC copy of Blair's 1990's era New Labour, and the GOP's intent will be , as
you say, to hit the Dem's brand as much as hit the final candidate.
The idiocy of the Strzok-Page texts illustrates once again the throwing of caution to the
wind when victory is assured - I suspect neither had ever in their pasts received a hit big
enough to foster instinctive caution against the speed at which the world can unravel around
them. Well, they do now !
...The sleazy guy didn't use the girls for his own pleasure alone. Instead, I think the
girls were being groomed for entrapping imp figures for blackmail. The money and the
billionaire lifestyle (with no known source of income) provided the context in which he could
meet the powerful and the famous. He was set up by the Wexner and others in mega group.
Why else should wexner entrust his money to a college dropout maths school teacher, who
was later thrown out of a minor job at a hedge fund for malpractice?
Sometimes things are as obvious as they seem. If you have a bunch of openly pro-Izzie
types (Wexner, maxwell) associated with such a setup, then you can safely conclude what they
are after.
We haven't seen anything yet of which I'm aware to allow for a determination of what led
to Epstein's serial abuses getting revisited. I very much doubt that it was a political
appointee new to the system who came into the job while harboring a determination to right a
wrong if given the chance. I think it more likely that it's a bottom up initiative, a witness
having developed as a result of having gotten jammed up in another case and offering up a
bigger fish, a newspaper story, new victims coming to light as a result of civil process, the
review process prior to releasing the disclosure materials triggering outrage, something
along these orders. Whatever it was, once the case was underway, in the era of #MeToo and
with new political appointees in place, there would be no stopping it.
It will be interesting to see who will be the ultimate targets. It was a travesty that in the
original case Epstein was the only person charged, unless I missed something. It's obvious
that there had been a facilitating organization that he was running and boatloads of cash
coming and going. No curiosity about that?
The prediction here is that Epstein will offer to cooperate sooner rather than later. It
would not surprise me at all if hasn't already been given the opportunity and wanted to wait
to see what cards the government was holding, try to figure out who from his old team had
turned and were witnesses against him.
A big question now is that if and when he does cooperate, what kind of corroborative
materials he would be able to bring along with him to bolster the victim testimony which will
be recollections of abuse from women when they were adolescents that happened quite a while
ago.
The indictment forecloses on any opportunity to use Epstein actively; and what kind of deal
do you offer to this guy anyway who right now appears to be the principal malefactor in order
to get to others, culpable users of his scheme surely, but not integral to his organization
per se, largely because they are newsworthy figures of one sort or another. Not an easy call,
but I would argue Epstein should take a major hit even if it means risking not getting his
cooperation.
"We haven't seen anything yet of which I'm aware to allow for a determination of what led
to Epstein's serial abuses getting revisited."
An important figure pushing for the re-opening of the case is Mike Cernovich. He along
with Breitbart are the main cheerleaders for the conviction- the draining of the swamp. They
are Trump's mouthpieces who talk directly to his base. I believe the Trump admin is
completely supporting the re-trial. AG Barr's father had to leave the posh school where he
had worked asa principal for a decade, soon after he employed college dropout Epstein as a
Math teacher. The guy who replaced barr Sr was a pedo (perhaps appointed with Epstein) and
left under a cloud. I think there is some personal revenge angle here as well.
The link optimax provides below (and reproduced here ) to an EIR (LaRouche) piece
on "Mega" is very interesting. It pulls a lot of this together and seems to be the main
source for your linked article. The title quote; "'Mega' was not an agent, Mega was the boss"
refers to the NYC-based Mega Group of Jewish billionaires (incl. Wexner) who actually run the
show. Epstein's operation looks to me like an subsidiary SPV to manufacture kompromat, as you
say.
The EIR piece is frustratingly lacking in links/citations, but the crucial one backing up
this quote does check out (link below). I have taken the liberty of saving it into the
Internet Archive in case it now 'disappears' due to the publicity. The author refers to Mega
Group as "the Megabucks" and describes an interesting twist on the traditional Mossad-run Z0G
narrative. He asserts that they are actually out for themselves and influence/buy politics in
Israeli every bit as much as in the US to further their own ends. Israel to them is merely a
useful tool. From the article:
" Israel for them is only a means to Jewish unity, on a par with the Holocaust
propaganda. The idea is to keep Jews together, away from hanging with other folks. The heads
of the American Jewish community need it, as they have a fair chance to find themselves
without soldiers, all chiefs, and no Indians. "
EIR quotes the WSJ article (paywall) saying Wexner and
Charles Bronfman founded the Mega Group in 1991. Charles' brother; Edgar Bronfman is also
listed as a member. I came across someone on reddit
) saying that Hillary basically handed over Libya to the Bronfmans. Edgar's daughter Sara and
her husband; Basit Igtet ( http://basitigtet.com) appear to have run the coup (see their
wikis on Libya). Basit is coincidentally chairman of an energy co. now looking to exploit
Libyan oil and apparently had/has ambitions to become president.
It may be antisemitic to characterize Jews as power-hungry money-obsessed world
dominators, but this group sure seem to fit the characterization rather well.
This debauchery is a part of the crisis of neoliberalism. It does increases the level of de-legitimization of neoliberal elite.
As one commenter pointed out: we need the names of scum, wealthy perverts from the United States who travelled to Epstein
island-sized rape dungeon off the coast of Saint Thomas.
Notable quotes:
"... This appears to be something of a pattern. "What is so amazing to me is how his entire social circle knew about this and just blithely overlooked it," Ward says of Epstein's pederasty. "While praising his charm, brilliance and generous donations to Harvard, those [I] spoke to all mentioned the girls as an aside." ..."
"... The Epstein case is first and foremost about the casual victimization of vulnerable girls. But it is also a political scandal, if not a partisan one. It reveals a deep corruption among mostly male elites across parties, and the way the very rich can often purchase impunity for even the most loathsome of crimes ..."
"... our elites still love Epstein, even if he does rape little girls ..."
"... This is how America is. This is how our ruling class works: Democrat, Republican, whatever. As the inimitable Matthew Walther points out , there's a reason people believe in Pizzagate. The Hellfire Club is real. And for decades, we've emboldened them considerably. ..."
"... Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that the Epstein sex abuse timeline is nearly identical to the Catholic Church sex abuse timeline. Both investigations were initiated in the early 2000s. Both revealed that the exploitation of children was an open secret in the highest echelons of power. Both investigations were closed a few years later, though not resolved. We assumed justice would take its course, and slowly began to forget. And then within two years of each other, both scandals emerged again, more sordid than ever. And on both occasions, we realized that nothing had changed. ..."
"... Of course, we know where that leads us. For two centuries, conservatives have tried to dampen the passions that led France to cannibalize herself circa 1789. ..."
"... Yes: those passions are legitimate. We should feel contempt for our leaders when we discover that two presidents cavorted with Epstein, almost certainly aware that he preyed on minors. We should feel disgust at the mere possibility that Pope Francis rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick. And we should be furious that these injustices haven't even come close to being properly redressed. ..."
"... This isn't about politics. This is about common decency and respect for the most vulnerable. Clinton? Trump? Who cares? If--and that's a big "if"--it comes to pass that either or both were involved in the Epstein festivities then either or both are scum and should be punished accordingly --along with the rest of their playmates at the Epstein playground. ..."
"... Does the author have some evidence to prove that President Trump is a pedophile, as he suggests in this article? Are all persons who may have been friends with Epstein perverts and criminals? ..."
"... If our decadent elite falls at all, it will be from imperial over-reach and losing a major foreign war, not from pedophilia, which is rapidly being normalized along with the rest of LGBTQWERTYUIOP. ..."
"... The so called elites seem above reproach. Our morality has been skewed through the soul. ..."
"... I applaud the courageous outliers like Ryan Dawson and Phil Giraldi that have considerably more guts than me. Blessings ..."
"... I don't think there is going to be a revolution, whether in UK or US, at most people would be outraged for couple of weeks and then forget. ..."
"... Excellent article. But off the mark on one key point. The corruption of the elites and Ruling Class -- and they are sickeningly corrupt -- is only a reflection of, or if you will a leading indicator, of a related corruption of the body politic. ..."
"... So Trump simply makes a comment, has no record of any flights, attendance or participation and this article would have you believe that it equates as despicable as a frequent flyer on the Lolita Express? This author is no different than the fake news. ..."
"... Trump did allegedly make one flight on the plane, from the NY area to Florida. No records show him flying to the "orgy island". ..."
"... Actually, the logs don't show that he was on the plane. Epstein's brother CLAIMS he was on the plane...the most anybody else has said to support that is that Trump looked at the plane on the ground. ..."
"... It's a Trump problem insofar as he continues to defend Acosta. This is the Sec of Labor who effectively let Epstein walk and who now oversees anti-human trafficking efforts (which he has repeatedly tried to gut the funding for). ..."
"... Did you see Acosta's press conference? The local State DA wanted to let Epstein walk - on a lesser state charge through a Grand Jury. Acosta's US Attorney office stepped in to get the charges increased as much as they could so that Epstein would do SOME jail time and - more importantly - have to register as a sex offender. ..."
"... I agree. As much as I detest Trump, I don't think that he was involved with Epstein's debauchery. However, I do believe the women that claim being assaulted, because he is on tape claiming to do what they describe. And there is so many of them. And he has had multiple documented affairs while married to every one of his wives. But no evidence yet of him with underage girls. ..."
"... Right, because those Kavanaugh accusers were so credible, right? No evidence, decades later? Nope. Unlike Kavanaugh, Trump was on a big stage for decades and was a pretty easy target with the tabloids looking for dirt...but none of them came forward. ..."
"... Trump owes America an apology, reading his comments it is obvious he was aware of, and disapproved of, Epstien proclivities, but didn't have the guts to stand up. (I do not believe the stories of Trump being involved, but if it turns out I am wrong on that, fry him ) ..."
Our elites cavorted with a pedophile, almost certainly aware of what he was up to. This is how revolutions begin.
Bill Clinton (Wikipedia Commons); Jeffrey Epstein mugshot (public domain) and Donald Trump
(Gabe Skidmore /Flickr)
For once, I'm with New York Times writer Michelle Goldberg: Jeffrey Epstein is the ultimate symbol of plutocratic rot.
In her
latest column , Goldberg interviews Vicky Ward, who covered the 2003 revelations of Epstein's sex abuse for Vanity Fair
. Ward's editor, Graydon Carter, allegedly ran interference for the high-flying pervert, nixing her discussion with two women
who claimed to have been assaulted by Epstein. "He's sensitive about the young women," Carter explained to Ward.
This appears to be something of a pattern. "What is so amazing to me is how his entire social circle knew about this and
just blithely overlooked it," Ward says of Epstein's pederasty. "While praising his charm, brilliance and generous donations to
Harvard, those [I] spoke to all mentioned the girls as an aside."
Back to Goldberg:
The Epstein case is first and foremost about the casual victimization of vulnerable girls. But it is also a political
scandal, if not a partisan one. It reveals a deep corruption among mostly male elites across parties, and the way the very rich
can often purchase impunity for even the most loathsome of crimes. If it were fiction, it would be both too sordid and
too on-the-nose to be believable, like a season of "True Detective" penned by a doctrinaire Marxist.
Of course, Goldberg -- being a Democrat -- doesn't want us to think of this as a partisan scandal. Yet Nancy Pelosi's daughter
conspicuously tweeted that it's "quite likely
that some of our faves are implicated." We all know by now that President Bill Clinton was a
frequent flyer on the Lolita Express, Epstein's
private jet, which ferried wealthy perverts from the United States to his island-sized rape dungeon off the coast of Saint Thomas.
Still, a few Republicans will almost certainly be implicated, too. Now, look: I voted for President Donald Trump in 2016. If
I don't vote for him in 2020, it will be because I've lost faith in the whole democratic process and have moved to a hole in the
ground to live as a hobbit. Having said that, Trump is definitely tainted by Epstein. In a 2002 interview with New York Magazine
, the president called him a "terrific guy." "It
is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do," Trump said, "and many of them are on the younger side."
Don't pretend that's an innocent remark. It's like when Uncle Steve passes out face-down on the kitchen floor at the family Christmas
party and Uncle Bill says, "I guess that one likes to drink." We still love Uncle Steve, even if he does overdo it on the
fire water. And our elites still love Epstein, even if he does rape little girls. None of us is perfect, after all.
This is how America is. This is how our ruling class works: Democrat, Republican, whatever. As the inimitable Matthew Walther
points out ,
there's a reason people believe in Pizzagate. The Hellfire Club is real. And for decades, we've emboldened them considerably.
Remember how Democrats and centrist Republicans mocked conservatives for making such a stink about Monica Lewinsky's blue dress?
The media elite competed to see who could appear the most unfazed by the fact that our sax-playing president was getting a bit on
the side. "I mean, heh heh, I love my wife, but, heh, the 1950s called, man! They want their morality police back."
Well, look where that got us. Two confirmed adulterers have occupied the White House in living memory; both are now under fire
for cavorting with a child sex slaver on Orgy Island. Go ahead and act surprised, Renault.
♦♦♦
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that the Epstein sex abuse timeline is nearly identical to the Catholic Church sex abuse
timeline. Both investigations were initiated in the early 2000s. Both revealed that the exploitation of children was an open secret
in the highest echelons of power. Both investigations were closed a few years later, though not resolved. We assumed justice would
take its course, and slowly began to forget. And then within two years of each other, both scandals emerged again, more sordid than
ever. And on both occasions, we realized that nothing had changed.
Whew. Now I get why people become communists. Not the new-wave, gender-fluid, pink-haired Trots, of course. Nor the new far Left,
which condemns child predators like Epstein out one side of its mouth while
demanding
sympathy for pedophiles out the other.
No: I mean the old-fashioned, blue-collar, square-jawed Stalinists. I mean the guy with eight fingers and 12 kids who saw photos
of the annual Manhattan debutantes' ball, felt the rumble in his stomach, and figured he may as well eat the rich.
Of course, we know where that leads us. For two centuries, conservatives have tried to dampen the passions that led France to
cannibalize herself circa 1789.
Nevertheless, those passions weren't illegitimate -- they were just misdirected. Only an Englishman like Edmund Burke could have
referred to the reign of Louis XIV as "the age of chivalry." Joseph de Maistre spoke for real French conservatives when he said
the decadent, feckless aristocracy deserved to be guillotined. The problem is, Maistre argued, there was no one more suitable to
succeed them.
Yes: those passions are legitimate. We should feel contempt for our leaders when we discover that two presidents cavorted
with Epstein, almost certainly aware that he preyed on minors. We should feel disgust at the
mere
possibility that Pope Francis rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick. And we should be furious that these injustices haven't even
come close to being properly redressed.
"Us Democrats"??? This isn't about politics. This is about common decency and respect for the most vulnerable. Clinton? Trump?
Who cares? If--and that's a big "if"--it comes to pass that either or both were involved in the Epstein festivities then either
or both are scum and should be punished accordingly --along with the rest of their playmates at the Epstein playground.
The only question is whether or not those who participated in this apparent debauch will ever be brought to justice--so,
on that note--let the dissembling begin!
Does the author have some evidence to prove that President Trump is a pedophile, as he suggests in this article? Are all
persons who may have been friends with Epstein perverts and criminals?
You are as my grandfather told me repeatedly: "You are your associates & colleagues, their morality or lack thereof, will
in time infect you as well, despite all protests to the contrary; choose wisely."
If our decadent elite falls at all, it will be from imperial over-reach and losing a major foreign war, not from pedophilia,
which is rapidly being normalized along with the rest of LGBTQWERTYUIOP.
In France, the generation of aristocrats and especially
the royal family who were guillotined were relatively conservative in their sexual habits compared to the bloodthirsty sexual
revolutionaries who murdered them. And the libertine aristocrats of Great Britain (I believe that's where the actual hellfire
club was from) led the war against Napoleon and the temporary victory of the old order which followed his defeat.
The so called elites seem above reproach. Our morality has been skewed through the soul. Tribalism is alive and well. Wars,
diversity, erasing of our most cherished values, and a mainstream media that is in lockstep the rulers and those who see fit
to erase Freedom of Speech and make arbitrarily decisions as to what we can and cannot say. It is like living a bad dream.
I
applaud the courageous outliers like Ryan Dawson and Phil Giraldi that have considerably more guts than me. Blessings
It's the mainstream media that forced this into the light. The elites and the justice system did all they could to cover
it up, same as with the Catholic Church.
As for "our most cherished virtues", this has all been going on forever. Kings and courtiers, masters and slaves, the son
of the manor and the serving girls. Give me a break.
The only thing that is changing it is a shift in power to women.
"Paederasty" is better reserved for relationships between patrician
men, and boys, in which there was an expectation that the boy would
eventually approximate the social rank of his lover. Not to be applied
to a man running a little-girl brothel.
In UK thousands of girls were raped and nobody lost their job over it. Well, correction, people who tried to bring attention
to the horrific crimes happening lost their jobs or were prosecuted. After the scandal could no longer be contained and arrests
were finally made, there was no reckoning. No people marching in the streets, demanding heads of the goverment. I don't think
there is going to be a revolution, whether in UK or US, at most people would be outraged for couple of weeks and then forget.
Or might possibly be that upon examination, it became abundantly clear that the allegations were highly exaggerated as is
typically the case in these matters.
It might be a good idea to keep a clear head and hope that evidence "actual evidence" will determine events as opposed to
the salacious hysetria that usually surrounds these cases.
"...the decadent, feckless aristocracy deserve to be guillotined. The problem is...there is no one suitable to replace them."
100%. And I work as a psychiatric RN in a busy Emergency Room. Believe me, depravity in this country is not in the least
bit confined to 'elites'. They just make convenient scapegoats. I can tell you hundreds of stories. But conservatively, I would
estimate that anywhere from 50% to 75% of the women I care for were abused as children. And I have cared for literally thousands
of women over the years.
"This is how revolutions are born."
Not so fast. The French peasants were rioting over bread, not aristocratic decadence. In 21st Century America, no one is
starving. The poor in this country are obese, for Chr-sakes! And half the country is implicated in so-called 'aristocratic decadence',
through online porn.
And like John Lennon once wrote, "You say you want a revolution?" Be careful what you wish for...
Prosecutors will tiptoe around anything that puts them in an awkward position vis-a-vis the rich and powerful.
These are people that prosecutors want to owe you favors, and these are also people that can ruin the lives and career prospects
of law enforcement.
This explains why, to give instance, Comey engaged in comically tortured legal reasoning to justify not bringing charges
against HRC for servergate, when she would be cooling her heels in a SuperMax if she were a normie. According to conventional
wisdom, HRC was going to be the next president, already anointed practically, and that meant that she was someone that would
be in a position to do Comey big favors, and at the same time, someone that you did not want to make an enemy of.
Excellent article. But off the mark on one key point. The corruption of the elites and Ruling Class -- and they are sickeningly
corrupt -- is only a reflection of, or if you will a leading indicator, of a related corruption of the body politic.
The Clintons, for example, have been getting away with sordid and even criminal behavior for a long time. It didn't stop
a major political party from putting one of them at the top of its presidential ticket only a few years ago nor a majority of
voters from pulling the lever for her.
In fact, going back to the Lewinsky saga, it was not only the elites who pooh-poohed the whole thing; it was also the citizenry.
Check the record. Yeah, the Clintons are Exhibit A of the Real Problem. Anyway, there ain't gonna be a revolution, at least
not the kind that Michael Warren Davis warns of.
"In fact, going back to the Lewinsky saga, it was not only the elites who pooh-poohed the whole thing; it was also the citizenry.
Check the record. "
The equivalent today would have been if Mueller's replacement spent a few more years 'investigating' Trump, only to set him
up with a perjury trap over whether or not he committed adultery.
This piece at the very least is not well researched hit piece on Trump but seems more to be a rabble rousing class warfare
type click bait filler. James Patterson reports that Trump kicked Epstein out of Maro-a-Lago 15 years ago after there were complaints
that he was abusive to women and more recently has said he is not a fan of Epstein. I've seen no evidence that Trump participated
in the abuse of underage girls with Epstein. Trump is no saint but sensationalizing this story and implicating Trump to sell
your copy is not journalism.
So Trump simply makes a comment, has no record of any flights, attendance or participation and this article would have you
believe that it equates as despicable as a frequent flyer on the Lolita Express? This author is no different than the fake news.
And it was a comment made three years before the first known report to police about Epstein's behavior.
I read Trump's comment as Trump being Trump. Unless he is responding to a personal attack, Trump tends to layer on the compliments
and tries to speak positive about people.
Trump did allegedly make one flight on the plane, from the NY area to Florida. No records show him flying to the "orgy island".
Actually, the logs don't show that he was on the plane. Epstein's brother CLAIMS he was on the plane...the most anybody else
has said to support that is that Trump looked at the plane on the ground.
The author throws around "revolution" so casually... The guillotine definitely needs a resurgence; unfortunately, it's not just the aristocracy that needs it; moreover, there
are still none better suited to take over after they chopping has stopped.
And throws without not even a thought but also without care to learn or now.
It is funny that American journo is now invoking Stalin's ghost, but.... Stalinists were COUNTER-revolutionaries.
And he says he is sure he knows who they felt?
.
Inflation, words means nothing today for journos, being merely a click-bait
It's a Trump problem insofar as he continues to defend Acosta. This is the Sec of Labor who effectively let Epstein walk
and who now oversees anti-human trafficking efforts (which he has repeatedly tried to gut the funding for).
Also, Trump supposedly told a campaign aide that he barred Epstein. Perhaps that's true. Hard to know with this inveterate
liar.
Did you see Acosta's press conference? The local State DA wanted to let Epstein walk - on a lesser state charge through a
Grand Jury. Acosta's US Attorney office stepped in to get the charges increased as much as they could so that Epstein would
do SOME jail time and - more importantly - have to register as a sex offender.
Now, should the Feds have interfered in a State case is a matter for another discussion. But Actosta's office did MORE than
what they should and everything they could with the evidence at the time.
As to Trump banning Epstein - it isn't "Trump told some aide", it is in the court records of the trial. Trump was subpoenaed
and talked voluntarily to the attorney for the girls. The attorney for the girls researched it and he says, and it is in the
court record, that Trump banned Epstein.
This is not a "Trump problem" as the media is trying to make it...this is a Dem problem.
I agree. As much as I detest Trump, I don't think that he was involved with Epstein's debauchery. However, I do believe the
women that claim being assaulted, because he is on tape claiming to do what they describe. And there is so many of them. And
he has had multiple documented affairs while married to every one of his wives. But no evidence yet of him with underage girls.
Right, because those Kavanaugh accusers were so credible, right? No evidence, decades later? Nope. Unlike Kavanaugh, Trump
was on a big stage for decades and was a pretty easy target with the tabloids looking for dirt...but none of them came forward.
THAT is your biggest clue that their claims are, as the judge recently said in dismissing one of these laughable cases, ""As
currently stated, the Complaint presents a political lawsuit, not a tort and wages lawsuit,"
Then, of course, the Trump lawyers just released a video of what happened that shows he gave her a peck on the cheek during
a conversation as he was leaving. She lied.
I think some conservative, maybe Rubio, needs to stand up and simply state they are going to lead on this, and then do so.
Simply go after anyone that is involved and make the casual nature of peoples knowledge of this kind of behavior into a something
that has to be repented of.
Trump owes America an apology, reading his comments it is obvious he was aware of, and disapproved of, Epstien proclivities,
but didn't have the guts to stand up. (I do not believe the stories of Trump being involved, but if it turns out I am wrong
on that, fry him )
For a republican leader to stand up as I am suggesting, would force the left to make a decision. Either abandon their current
attitudes towards sexual permissiveness, or defend them. Either way conservatives win.
That comment was from three years before Epstein was charged. But YOUNG does not mean TOO young, always, and Trump was obviously
speaking of what OTHERS say, not what he knew for a fact.
Davis--and many TAC readers--voted for Trump even though the then-candidate sexually assaulted women and got caught bragging
about it.
While I welcome conservatives to the #metoo era, it must be acknowledged that their "outrage" didn't come to life until they
could attach the dirty deeds to Bill Clinton and other "elites" (whatever that overused term means).
No, it came with Weinstein...who proved what Trump ACTUALLY said on the bus to be true. Not that HE, Trump, HAD grabbed women,
but that young women seeking fame would LET the rich and famous grab them. Shortly after we found out that this was true when
we found out about Weinstein and what those young starlets allowed. What people knew, all good Hollywood liberals and Dems,
and LET continue while accepting Weinstein's political contributions and working with him professionally.
Essentially Epstein run a brothel for influential politicians and other stars. Girls were paid so they were hired prostitutes.
That fact that he did it with impunity for so long suggest state sponsorship.
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, the case against Epstein seems so overwhelming that it's already been reported , albeit not confirmed, that his lawyers are seeking a plea bargain. Yet even if Epstein doesn't "flip," it's a cinch that many luminaries -- in politics, business, and entertainment -- will at least be named, if not outright inculpated. ..."
"... Yet perhaps the most aching parallel to Epstein is the NXIUM sex slave case, which has already led to guilty pleas and entangled not only Hollywood stars but also heirs to one of North America's great fortunes, the Bronfmans. ..."
"... In 1944, film legend Charlie Chaplin, too, found himself busted on a Mann Act rap. Chaplin was accused of transporting a young "actress" across state lines; he was acquitted after a sensational trial, but not before it was learned that he had financed his lover's two abortions. Chaplin's career in Hollywood was effectively over. ..."
"... In fact, if one takes all these horrible cases in their totality -- Varsity Blues, NXIUM, Epstein -- one might fairly conclude that the problem is larger than just a few rich and twisted nogoodniks. ..."
"... Hardly. It merely puts it into historical perspective. Epstein is but one of a long line of serial sexual predators through the ages. ..."
"... Biological parentage is no guarantee of virtue towards children. Predatory behaviour towards children is most likely to come from within the family. ..."
"... Bill Clinton had at least 26 international trips on Epstein's private plane, including 18 to Epstein's private Caribbean island, which was reportedly staffed with dozens of underage women, mostly from Latin America. It was referred to as "Orgy Island" or "Pedo Island" by the locals. ..."
"... I disagree show me where the Progressives have any morals after all look at Clinton. Even the so called fake republicans are guilty. Our country is in the toilet . The schools are hotbeds of moral decay teaching kids LGBT sex education etc. ..."
"... Marx himself understood, capitalism is a fundamentally chaotic, disruptive, even revolutionary force that destroys everything that conservatives value the most (and want to "conserve.") The free-market fundamentalism that so many conservatives accept as gospel truth really is nothing more than a "false consciousness." ..."
"... If ever a situation called for rendition, this is it. I've been following this since 2007, and my intuition tells many more important people are involved than those we know. ..."
"... Be very skeptical. Why is DOJ suddenly resurrecting a case that was settled 10 years ago? I can't help to wonder if this isn't yet another part of the coup attempt. ..."
"... Trump also gave other evidence and information he had gleaned to prosecutors during the first Epstien trial. ..."
"... We should point this out as often as possible because liberal media is trying to smear Trump by including his name next to Epstien in every article. ..."
Jeffrey Epstein's trial may do what no other could: Bring populists and progressives together against predatory elites.
By JAMES P. PINKERTON •
July 10, 2019
Jeffrey Epstein mugshot (public domain)
The legal proceedings against financier Jeffrey Epstein are going to be spectacular. The sober-minded New York Times is
already running
headlines such as "Raid on Epstein's Mansion Uncovered Nude Photos of Girls," describing the victims as "minors, some as young
as 14." So, yes, this story is going to be, well, lit .
Epstein is the pluperfect "Great White Defendant," to borrow the phrase from Tom Wolfe's 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities.
In Epstein's case, even the left, normally indulgent on crime, is going to be chanting: lock him up.
In fact, the case against Epstein seems so overwhelming that it's already been
reported , albeit not confirmed, that
his lawyers are seeking a plea bargain. Yet even if Epstein doesn't "flip," it's a cinch that many luminaries -- in politics, business,
and entertainment -- will at least be named, if not outright inculpated.
Which is to say, the Epstein case is shaping up as yet another lurid look at the lifestyles of the rich, famous, and powerful,
sure to boil the blood of populists on the right and class warriors on the left. In this same vein, one also thinks of the "Varsity
Blues" college admissions scandal, as well as the post-Harvey Weinstein #MeToo movement.
Yet perhaps the most aching parallel to Epstein is the
NXIUM sex slave case, which has already led to guilty pleas and entangled not only Hollywood stars but also heirs to one of
North America's great fortunes, the Bronfmans.
In that NXIUM case, it's hard not to notice the similarity between "NXIUM" and "Nexum," which was the ancient Roman word for
personal debt bondage -- that is, a form of slavery.
The Romans, of course, were big on conquest and enslavement, and such aggression always had a sexual dimension, as has been the
case, of course, for all empires, everywhere. Thus we come to a consistent theme across human history, namely the importation of
pretty young things from the provinces for the lecherous benefit of the rich and powerful.
It's believed that Saint Gregory the Great, the pope in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, gazed upon English boys at
a Roman slave market and remarked, non Angli, sed angeli, si forent Christiani ; that is, "They are not Angles, but angels,
if they were Christian." Gregory's point was that such lovely beings needed to be converted to Christianity, although, of course,
others had, and would continue to have, other intentions.
If we fast-forward a thousand years or so, we see another kind of enslavement, resulting, at least in part, from profound economic
inequality. William Hogarth's famous prints , "A
Harlot's Progress," follow the brief life of the fictive yet fetching Moll Hackabout, who comes from the provinces to London seeking
employment as a seamstress -- only to end up as a kept woman, then as a prostitute, before dying of syphilis.
Interestingly, a traditional song about descent into earthly hell, "House of the Rising Sun,"
made popular again in the '60s , also makes reference
to past honest work in the garment trade -- "my mother was a tailor."
If we step back and survey civilization's sad saga of exploitation, we see that it occurs under all manner of political and economic
systems, from feudalism to capitalism to, yes, communism. As for ravenous reds, there's the notorious case of Stalinist apparatchik
Lavrenti Beria, whom one chronicler
says enjoyed "a Draculean sex life that combined love, rape, and perversity in almost equal measure."
In the face of such a distressing litany, it's no wonder that there have been periodic reactions, some of them violent and extreme,
such as the original "bonfire of the vanities" back in the 15th century, led by the zealously puritanical cleric, Savonarola.
Yet for most of us, it's more cheering to think that prudential reform can succeed. One landmark of American reform was the
White-Slave Traffic Act , signed into law in 1910
("white slavery," we might note, is known today as "sex trafficking"). That law, aimed at preventing not only prostitution but also
"debauchery," is known as the Mann Act in honor of its principal author, Representative James R. Mann, Republican of Illinois, who
served in Congress from 1897 to 1922.
Mann's career mostly coincided with the presidential tenures of two great reformers, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. And
it's hard to overstate just how central to progressive thinking was the combatting of "vice." After all, if the goal was to create
a just society, it also had to be a wholesome society; otherwise no justice could be sustainable. Thus when Roosevelt served
as police commissioner of New York City in the mid-1890s, he focused on fighting vice, rackets, and corruption.
Of course, Mann, Roosevelt, and Wilson had much more on their minds than just cleaning up depravity. They saw themselves as reformers
across the board; that is, they were eager to improve economic conditions as well as social ones.
So it was that Mann also co-authored the Mann-Elkins
Act , further regulating the railroads; he also spearheaded the
Pure Food and Drug Act
, creating the FDA. It's interesting that when Mann died in 1922, The New York Times ran an entirely admiring
obituary , recalling him as "a dominating figure in the House [a] leader in dozens of parliamentary battles." In other words,
back then, the Times was fully onboard with full-spectrum cleanup, on the Right as well as the Left.
To be sure, the Mann Act hardly eradicated the problem of sex-trafficking, just as Mann's other legislative efforts did not put
an end to abuses in transportation and in foods and drugs. However, we can say that Mann made things better .
Of course, the Mann Act has long been controversial. Back in 1913, the African-American boxer Jack Johnson was convicted according
to its provisions. (Intriguingly, in 2018, Johnson was posthumously
pardoned
by President Trump.)
In 1944, film legend Charlie Chaplin, too, found himself busted on a Mann Act rap. Chaplin was accused of transporting a
young "actress" across state lines; he was acquitted after a sensational trial, but not before it was learned that he had financed
his lover's two abortions. Chaplin's career in Hollywood was effectively over.
Cases such as these made the Mann Act distinctly unpopular in "sophisticated" circles. Of course, criticism from the smart set
is not the same as proof that the law is not still valuable. That's why, more than a century after its passage, the Mann Act is
still on the books, albeit much amended. Lawmakers agree that it's still necessary, because, after all, there's always a need to
protect women
from wolves .
Now back to Epstein. If we learn that he was actually running something called the "Lolita Express," that would be a signal that
prosecutors have a lot of work to do, rounding up the pedophile joyriders. So it was interesting on July 6 to see Christine Pelosi,
daughter of the House speaker, posting a stern
tweet : "This Epstein case is horrific and the young women deserve justice. It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated
but we must follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may -- whether on Republicans or Democrats."
So we can see: the younger Pelosi wants one standard -- a standard that applies to all.
In fact, if one takes all these horrible cases in their totality -- Varsity Blues, NXIUM, Epstein -- one might fairly conclude
that the problem is larger than just a few rich and twisted nogoodniks.
That is, the underlying issues of regional and social inequality -- measured in power as well as wealth -- must be addressed.
To put the matter another way, we need a bourgeoisie that is sturdier economically and more sure of itself culturally. Only then
will we have Legions of Decency and other
Schlafly-esque activist groups to function as counterweights to a corrosive and exploitative culture.
Of course, as TR and company knew, if we seek a better and more protective American equilibrium, a lot will have to change --
and not just in the culture.
Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural norming, and "liberal" elements, as
in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland. Only with
these economic and governmental changes can we be sure that it's possible to have a nice life in Anytown, safely far away from beguiling
pleasuredomes.
To be sure, we can't expect ever to solve all the troubles of human nature -- including the rage for fame that drives some youths
from the boondocks. But we can at least bolster the bourgeois alternative to predatory Hefnerism.
In the meantime, unless we can achieve such structural changes, rich and powerful potentates will continue to pull innocent angels
into their gilded dens of iniquity.
James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at . He served as a White House policy aide to both Presidents
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
"Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural norming, and "liberal" elements,
as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland."
Neither of which will happen with the blue megacities having political control.
"(T)here's always a need to protect women from wolves." It should be noted that boys who are sex-trafficked also fall under
the Mann Act. This may not be clear from Wikipedia.
Wow! What a wonderful article! The compassion for the young victims just jumps off the screen along with the disgust at the
corruption that has allowed this predator to damage so many lives over at least three decades.
No, the fact is that your dispassionate, detached, political assessment objectifies and dehumanizes the girls that
were abused by Epstein and by the stupidly named "justice system" and reflects the obnoxious rot at the root of our society
when it comes to the abuse of women and children.
When it comes right down to it, this doesn't really matter to you, it is just another political amusement.
"Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural norming, and "liberal" elements,
as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland.
Only with these economic and governmental changes can we be sure that it's possible to have a nice life in Anytown, safely far
away from beguiling pleasuredomes."
Liberal "social and cultural norming" (as in feminism, consent, discussion of sexual matters (gasp!) in the public sphere,
#MeToo, etc.) is what is making a difference more because such things are encouraging victims and giving them support. The (cough)
"justice" system needs reform so that rape kits get processed, victims are listened to instead of shamed, cases are actually
investigated, rapists aren't let off because "he comes from a good family" etc. The Nevada Legislature with it's recent legislation
is leading the way, because it has a female majority. THAT is what will change things FINALLY.
His "historical perspective" is just more of the same sh*t we have heard for millennia as are his prescriptions for solutions.
A key conclusion of the article is that Epstein and other recent scandals about the abuse of power mean "issues of regional
and social inequality -- measured in power as well as wealth -- must be addressed."
So if all regions and all social classes were equal, this would go away? First, gifts have always been and will always be
distributed unequally, so this egalitarian utopia will never be obtained -- leading to the indefinite justification "we have
more work to do" to force people and society into an unattainable intellectual ideal, and justifying endless injustices in the
process. Second, the article itself points out that the Soviets who ostensibly pursued an egalitarian state had a famous abuser
among the ranks of their political bosses (and likely had others we don't known about).
Ultimately, kids are best cared for and defended in family with their biological parents -- the very unit of society that's
been under unceasing attack for decades. Support the family and support small business which is responsible for something like
80% of new jobs created in the US. Then vigorously enforce the laws that are already on the books. A key problem with Epstein
was the law was for years or decades not enforced against him, I strongly suspect because he had very highly placed political
connections, probably several of which were sexually abusing young girls (and/or boys?) Epstein "introduced" them to. What amount
of social engineering or experimentation is going to eliminate that kind of political corruption? I highly doubt any will. Once
it's discovered, everyone involved should be prosecuted and exposed -- and any other cases of sex slavery rings discovered in
the process likewise have all their members prosecuted & exposed.
Lavrenti Beria as the prescient symbol of Soviet Babbitry v. worldwide immorality! So was Ernst Rohm! Thank god for the KGB
and SS as harbingers of true moral concern over sex abuse!
"Ultimately, kids are best cared for and defended in family with their biological parents "
LMAO. Historically the family and biologoical parents were part and parcel in many of the deals involved with these trades.
Biological parentage is no guarantee of virtue towards children. Predatory behaviour towards children is most likely
to come from within the family. I can't remember the family name but there was a family that made a big thing of their
"Proper Christian Family" even while one son was abusing his younger sister/s and the Parents protected and shielded him.
"In Epstein's case, even the left, normally indulgent on crime, is going to be chanting: lock him up." - You almost lost
me on that one. The Left is not normally 'indulgent on crime'. However, The Left is resistant to making 'immorality' (pot smoking,
sodomy, gambling, gay marriage, etc) criminal, given how driving 'vice' underground and making it illegal has unintended consequences
(such as creating the mafia and Latin American drug cartels) that are worse than 'the crime', but I decided to read on.
"That is, the underlying issues of regional and social inequality -- measured in power as well as wealth -- must be addressed."
- All in for that one. Glad to see your 'wokeness'. Please send a check to Bernie.
"In the meantime, unless we can achieve such structural changes, rich and powerful potentates will continue to pull innocent
angels into their gilded dens of iniquity" - Like Donald Trump, Roger Ailes, Roy Moore, David Vitter, Dennis Hastert, Chris
Collins, Duncan Hunter, Michael Grimm, and on and on.
The Democrats have shown they are more than willing to ostracize members of their own team (Al Franken) for alleged and actual
wrongdoing. The Republicans, not so much, since they usually overlook all kinds of deviance if a politically expedient. Such
as Tim Murphy from PA and Scott DesJarlais from TN, both married 'anti-abortion' zealots caught urging their mistresses to have
abortions.
"The Democrats have shown they are more than willing to ostracize members of their own team (Al Franken) for alleged
and actual wrongdoing."
Like Bill Clinton. The same Team D Wokemon champions who insisted that any form of sexual or romantic contact between a male
supervisor and a female subordinate was by definition sexual harassment suddenly changed their tune when Bill Clinton was the
supervisor.
Not only that, but they came up with the most hilarious tortured redefinitions of "perjury" in order to justify their hero.
For the record: I am not a Team R fan either, but I am not so naive as to think the problem is limited to one team.
It is not. Bill Clinton was a cad. No doubt. But I find it very interesting that Juanita Broaddick recanted her allegations
against Clinton when Ken Starr put her under oath.
The only outrage Democrats will actually express over Epstein is to again tar and feather Trump in the usual fashion: Nibble
at the toes of hapless political operatives and bureaucrats like Acosta, and then accuse the President of colluding in his own
purported ignorance and self-enrichment.
There is an elephant in the room I think many conservatives are ignoring right now. A real big one...
"President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the 66-year-old hedge fund manager charged this week with sex trafficking and
conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, were the only other attendees to a party that consisted of roughly two dozen women at
his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, according to a New York Times report."
"In 1992, the women were reportedly flown in for a "calendar girl" competition that was requested by Trump, The Times said.
"At the very first party, I said, 'Who's coming tonight? I have 28 girls coming,'" former Trump associate George Houraney
reportedly said. "It was him and Epstein."
"I said, 'Donald, this is supposed to be a party with VIPs. You're telling me it's you and Epstein," he recalled saying."
"Houraney claimed to have warned Trump about Epstein's behavior and said the real estate tycoon did not heed his notice.
Houraney, a businessman, reportedly said Trump "didn't care" about how he had to ban Epstein from his events."
This is an old elephant. It raised its head during the campaign and did not make much in the way of waves. Will it come back
to bite the president today -- one hopes that its all rumor hearsay and gossip.
I am willing to grant that the president may have been a "masher" in his day. Whether that means relations with children
is another matter.
Bill Clinton had at least 26 international trips on Epstein's private plane, including 18 to Epstein's private Caribbean
island, which was reportedly staffed with dozens of underage women, mostly from Latin America. It was referred to as "Orgy Island"
or "Pedo Island" by the locals.
One is a retired politician. The other is the current POTUS. If Bill is guilty, lock him up. If Trump is guilty - we need
to know ASAP and he can no longer be the president.
If Jeffery Epstein is such a monster then what is one to make of a man who has been quoted as saying "You can do what ever
you want, grab them by the *****." and then during a presidential debate shamelessly state "I have great respect for women.
Nobody has more respect for women than I do."?
Laughing good grief --- First I have to get passed the suggestion that guys bragging nonsensically about their female conquests
is the same hiring teens to for relations.
Good grief . . . these types of issues are ripe for hysterics.
excuse my politically incorrect suggestion of making the categorical distinctions
I disagree show me where the Progressives have any morals after all look at Clinton. Even the so called fake republicans
are guilty. Our country is in the toilet . The schools are hotbeds of moral decay teaching kids LGBT sex education etc.
Cultural Marxism is at play and next they will soften up and normalize pedophile. As far as the women's movement they are bitter
progressives who on there Facebook moaning about how they make less money then men. Who is taking of the kids? There are no
real men any more they have become boys!! Sex is every where and no one cares they all going along with the new world order!
You forgot to mention our current thrice divorced President who cheats on his wife with porn stars and pays them to stay
quiet. Strong moral leadership....
If this happened, my faith in the "rule of law" and in prosecutors and law enforcement treating everyone equally might be
restored. But, alas, we all know this is not going to happen.
"...the younger Pelosi wants one standard -- a standard that applies to all."
Don't we all. But if history teaches us anything it teaches that the higher up the socioeconomic food chain we go, the more
"flexible" that standard becomes.
So we'll see about Epstein--and all the other big shots who were in on this debauch.
"...the younger Pelosi wants one standard -- a standard that applies to all."
Does she want that single standard to apply to people that flaunt our laws by having, say, a clandestine and illegal email
server that was used for classified correspondence?
Mr. Pinkerton apparently (like many) needs to learn what the definition of pedophile is (hint: It's doesn't mean any and
all sex under he legal age of consent). However illegal (to say nothing of distasteful and immoral) Epstein's actions may have
been, based on the claims I've seen, he is not a pedophile.
I also find it hard to believe that Clinton and others didn't know. Rumours of Epstein's proclivities, and his plane being
called "Lolita Express," have been around for along-time, but Epstein has been protected by his connections and wealth. Clinton
flew nearly 30 times on Epstein's private jet. Is he the only person in the world who never heard the stories about him? What
did he know and when did he know it?
If you're asking that question about Clinton- a 90s has-been politician whose own party has moved on past him, then I hope
you're also asking it about the current president who was also a bosom buddy to Epstein.
According to flight manifests, Trump flew one time, from New York to Palm Beach, on Epstein's plane. Clinton took at least
26 international trips on the Lolita Express, including 18 trips to Epstein's private Caribbean island, where he supposedly
had dozens of underage women from Latin America kept. The locals referred to it at 'Orgy Island" and "Pedo Island". We're not
exactly comparing apples to apples here, are we?
Compare the Mueller soap opera. The characters in that story were sleazy international fixers and blackmailers who worked
for everyone. Same type as Epstein. They worked for KGB, CIA, Clinton, Trump, Mossad, Saudi. Despite the universality of the
crimes, Mueller meticulously "saw" only the crimes that involved Trump and Russia. FBI always works that way. Any accusation
or evidence that doesn't fit the predefined story disappears.
Muller had a specific investigatory mission. He was not empowered to look into every government scandal since Alexander Hamilton
was blackmailed by Maria Reynolds.
Part of what doomed the post-WWII "Right" was the "fusionism" between conservatism and capitalism. While the latter got real
policy results, the former was merely pandered to during elections but otherwise ignored. As a result, leftists and centrists
mistakenly came to believe that being "right-wing" means being a corporate shill lobbying to cut taxes for the rich and pay
for it by cutting programs for the poor.
At the same time,
as Marx himself understood, capitalism is a fundamentally chaotic, disruptive, even revolutionary force that destroys
everything that conservatives value the most (and want to "conserve.") The free-market fundamentalism that so many conservatives
accept as gospel truth really is nothing more than a "false consciousness."
Many traditionalists (such as Russell Kirk) resisted fusionism for placing too much emphasis on markets and not enough on
the conservative commitment "to religious belief, to national loyalty, to established rights in society, and to the wisdom
of our ancestors." And many libertarians (such as F.A. Hayek) explicitly rejected conservatism for being too nationalistic
and hostile toward open systems.
If conservatives want any political future in this country, then they're going to have to "de-fuse," so to speak, with capitalism,
which has been exploiting their support in order to advance policies against their own interests and values. If
"Woke Capitalism" isn't the final straw, then what will it take? Conservatives could learn a lot from the Progressive Movement
of the 1890s-1920s, which despite its name was far more conservative than the David-Frenchist National Review is nowadays.
Indeed, the Progressives' reformist playbook (which recognized that the rapid changes brought by industrialization, immigration,
and urbanization had caused corruption, poverty, and vice) could and should be dusted off for today.
As far as Epstein goes, I'm rather pessimistic that he'll ever be punished and that the public will ever learn the full extent
of his crimes. While Nancy Pelosi's daughter may be principled (and good for her), the fact that so many wealthy and powerful
people may be incriminated is precisely why he'll be let off easy and the evidence will be covered up, just like last time.
I have zero confidence in our justice system, particularly in the hyper-politicized SDNY.
If ever a situation called for rendition, this is it. I've been following this since 2007, and my intuition tells many
more important people are involved than those we know. Anyone involved would be terrified; they'll have to break someone
to get the facts. As someone who was almost abducted at age 9, I say get on it.
Be very skeptical. Why is DOJ suddenly resurrecting a case that was settled 10 years ago? I can't help to wonder if this
isn't yet another part of the coup attempt.
Twisted sisters will do what they do with or without social disparities. All you can do is bury them when you catch them.
If the rich and famous get caught up, no ones fault but their own.
The Mann Act mainly served to enforce Roman Catholic ideas about marriage's being somehow special. The Bible offers no such
thing as an example of a religious marriage, whether Muslim, Catholic or Protestant, unless it be that of Job.
You expect a free pass for this term paper theory that downright American types are going to unite to stop sexual predation,
and their brains will swirl with reminiscences of St. Gregory and Sen. Mann?
I am unaware that Chaplin's career was "effectively over" after his sex trial. Chaplin made "Monsieur Verdoux" in 1947 in
good time after the modern Bluebeard of France, Marcel Petiot made headlines (this predator swindled Jews of safe passage money
out of France, poisoned them, and burned their bodies in his home. No time of reckoning for France or Francophiles here). Five
years later he released "Limelight", which could be called a loving tribute to vaudeville and silent film at the same time (Buster
Keaton appeared, and it is said that many omitted segments were his finest hour in the sound era. Note that financially and
at box office, Keaton was as ruined and burned out as countless others, but was in the end a hard working trouper who even made
it to Samuel Beckett!). Chaplin flagged thereafter, but made films at exactly the pace he wished, as characterized by the slow
linger from "Modern Times" to "The Great Dictator".
Errol Flynn on the other hand was boosted by his sex scandal as alleged with a 15 year old. His release "They Died With Their
Boots On" made reference to the allegation that Flynn was naked except for a pair of boots. And remember the original Hollywood
Confidential scandal that rounded up dozens of celebrities including Lizbeth Scott in a prostitution ring? All forgotten.
So if your going to make big analogies between Hollywood, celebrity, and yet another paroxysm of soon to evaporate Puritan
righteousness, at least know what you're talking about.
For the record, I believe that if Epstein punched 8 years above his weight in his choice of femmes, he might never have been
caught.
The article is way to long and I read the first paragraph and after the words "The sober-minded New York Times" I jumped
to the comments. The headline was enough for me...I agree, Lock Him Up.
"... Bear Stearns -- the bank that had given Mr. Epstein his start -- was still among his investments when the crisis hit. According to a lawsuit he later filed against the bank, Mr. Epstein controlled about 176,000 shares of Bear Stearns, worth nearly $18 million, in August 2007. ..."
"... Mr. Epstein sold 56,000 shares at $101 each that month. He sold the remaining 120,000 shares in March 2008 as the firm was collapsing -- 20,000 at $35 and the rest at $3.04, losing big. He also lost about $50 million in one of Bear's hedge funds. ..."
"... By the time Bear Stearns came apart, Mr. Epstein was at the center of his first abuse case. He pleaded guilty to prostitution charges in 2008, receiving a jail sentence that allowed him to work at home during the day but also required him to register as a sex offender ..."
"... The court document alleges: "Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe (a name used in US legal proceedings for people with anonymity), making her available for sex to politically connected and financially powerful people. ..."
"... "Epstein's purposes in 'lending' Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information. ..."
"... Journalist George Webb, watch his Youtube channel, has been following Epstein 'activities' for decades, connecting him all the way back to the Bush Sr. and Jr. Boys Town White House peadophile ring. Epstein was the 'go to guy' for rat line trafficking missions, into Kosovo, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, every war zone across the world one can think of, to move dark ops in and out of, closely linked to DynCorp, which core business is 'aviation security services' and infamous for enabling and promoting underage transgressions of all of its personnel in Yugoslavia where Bill Clinton has murdered many thousands unbeknownst to the gullible and rather retarded Americuh public ..."
Jeffrey Epstein's wealth has long been a topic of discussion since becoming known as a 'billionaire pedophile' and other similar
monickers. Described by prosecuitors this week as a "man of nearly infinite means," a
2011 SEC filing has
provided a window into the registered sex offender's elite Wall Street links, according to the
Financial Times .
Epstein, who caught a lucky break tutoring the son of Bear Stearns chairman Alan Greenberg before joining the firm, left the
investment bank in 1981 to set up his own financial firm. While he reportedly managed money for billionaires for decades, most of
Epstein's dealings have been done in the shadows.
A 2011 SEC filing reveals that Epstein's privately held firm, the Financial Trust Company , took a 6.1% stake in Pennsylvania-based
catalytic converter maker Environmental Solutions Worldwide (ESW) backed by Leon Black, the billionaire founder of Apollo Global
Management .
ESW itself has a checkered past. In 2002, its then-chairman Bengt Odner was accused by the SEC of participating with others in
a $15 million "pump and dump" scheme with ESW stock. The case was settled a year later according to FT , with Odner ordered to pay
a $25,000 civil penalty. Of note, ESW accepted Epstein's investment several years after he had registered as a sex offender in a
controversial 2008 plea deal in Florida.
Epstein's connection to Black doesn't stop there - as the financier served as a director on the Leon Black Family Foundation
for over a decade until 2012 according to IRS filings. A spokeswoman for the foundation claims that Epstein had resigned in July
2007, and that his name continued to appear on the IRS filings "due to a recording error" for five years. A 2015 document signed
by Epstein provided to the Financial Times appears to confirm this.
Epstein also built his wealth with Steven J. Hoffenberg and Leslie H. Wexner, the former of whom was convicted of running a giant
Ponzi scheme, and the latter a clothing magnate.
Mr. Epstein's wealth may have depended less on his math acumen than his connections to two men -- Steven J. Hoffenberg, a
onetime owner of The New York Post and a notorious fraudster later convicted of running
a $460 million Ponzi scheme , and Leslie H. Wexner, the billionaire founder of retail chains including The Limited and the
chief executive of the company that owns Victoria's Secret.
Mr. Hoffenberg was Mr. Epstein's partner in two ill-fated takeover bids in the 1980 s, including one of Pan American World
Airways, and would later claim that Mr. Epstein had been part of the scheme that landed him in jail -- although Mr. Epstein
was never charged. With Mr. Wexner, Mr. Epstein formed a financial and personal bond that baffled longtime associates of the
wealthy retail magnate, who was his only publicly disclosed investor. -
New York Times
"I think we both possess the skill of seeing patterns," Wexner told Vanity Fair in 2003. "But Jeffrey sees patterns in politics
and financial markets, and I see patterns in lifestyle and fashion trends."
Those around Wexner were mystified over Wexner's affinity for Epstein.
" Everyone was mystified as to what his appeal was ," said Robert Morosky, a former vice chairman of The Limited. "I checked
around and found out he was a private high school math teacher, and that was all I could find out. There was just nothing there."
As the New York Times
noted on Wednesday, Epstein's "infinite means" may be a mirage, as while he is undoubtedly extremely rich, there is "little
evidence that Mr. Epstein is a billionaire."
While Epstein told potential clients he only accepted investments of $1 billion or more, his investment firm reported having
$88 million in capital from his shareholders, and 20 employees according to a 2002 court filing - far fewer than figures being reported
at the time.
And while most of Epstein's dealings are unknown, his Financial Trust Company also had a $121 million investment in DB Zwirn
& Co, which shuttered its doors in 2008, and had a stake in Bear Stearns's failed High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced
Leverage Fund - the collapse of which helped spark the global financial crisis.
Epstein was hit hard by the financial crisis a decade ago, while allegations of sexual abuse of teenage girls caused many associates
- such as Wexner - to sever ties with him.
Bear Stearns -- the bank that had given Mr. Epstein his start -- was still among his investments when the crisis hit.
According to a lawsuit he later filed against the bank, Mr. Epstein controlled about 176,000 shares of Bear Stearns, worth nearly
$18 million, in August 2007.
Mr. Epstein sold 56,000 shares at $101 each that month. He sold the remaining 120,000 shares in March 2008 as the firm was
collapsing -- 20,000 at $35 and the rest at $3.04, losing big. He also lost about $50 million in one of Bear's hedge funds.
By the time Bear Stearns came apart, Mr. Epstein was at the center of his first abuse case. He pleaded guilty to prostitution
charges in 2008, receiving a jail sentence that allowed him to work at home during the day but also required him to register
as a sex offender. -
New York Times
In trying to determine what Epstein is actually worth, Bloomberg notes that " So little is known about Epstein's current business
or clients that the only things that can be valued with any certainty are his properties. The Manhattan mansion is estimated to
be worth at least $ 77 million , according to a federal document submitted in advance of his bail hearing."
He also has properties in New Mexico, Paris and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he has a private island, and a Palm Beach
estate with an assessed value of more than $12 million . He shuttles between them by private jet and has at least 15 cars, including
seven Chevrolet Suburbans, according to federal authorities. -
Bloomberg
Deutsche Bank, meanwhile,
severed ties with Epstein earlier this year - right as federal prosecutors were preparing to charge him with operating a sex-trafficking
ring of underage girls out of his sprawling homes in Manhattan and Palm Beach, according to Bloomberg , citing a person familiar
with the situation. It is unknown how much money was involved or how long Epstein had been a client.
3 play_arrow 1
FKTHEGVNMNT , 1 hour ago
That black book is still missing, it is actually a meticulous journal. His butler who died at 60 due to mesothelioma kept
it as insurance, those snippets was just him saying " I got the goods.
Dr.Strangelove , 1 hour ago
The Feds should do what they did with Al Capone, and put him in the slammer on tax evasion charges. I'm sure Epstein has
reported all of his ill gotten billions to the IRS tax man.....NOT.
CheapBastard , 43 minutes ago
I wonder how many human assets, aka, slave girls, he owns? I guess they could value the slave child based on how much revenue
they brought in.
FKTHEGVNMNT , 2 hours ago
The court document alleges: "Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe (a name used in US legal proceedings
for people with anonymity), making her available for sex to politically connected and financially powerful people.
"Epstein's purposes in 'lending' Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself
with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.
I wonder if Prince Andrew has deleted him from Facebook
marcel tjoeng , 3 hours ago
Journalist George Webb, watch his Youtube channel, has been following Epstein 'activities' for decades, connecting him
all the way back to the Bush Sr. and Jr. Boys Town White House peadophile ring. Epstein was the 'go to guy' for rat line
trafficking missions, into Kosovo, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, every war zone across the world one can think of, to move dark
ops in and out of, closely linked to DynCorp, which core business is 'aviation security services' and infamous for enabling
and promoting underage transgressions of all of its personnel in Yugoslavia where Bill Clinton has murdered many thousands unbeknownst
to the gullible and rather retarded Americuh public.
Trafficking underage girls from Ukraine back and forth to the USA to pimp out to every diplomat from every country that bought
and sold state secrets, flying underage girls to the Middle East to peddle to oil sheiks, involved with obtaining and exchanging
state secrets of for instance American DARPA, the top secret military research giant, to any 'diplomat' connected to the secretive
network of an 'Illuminati' type deep state collusion, the power brokers of war and sex.
The Irgun of Menachem Begin, the Mossad of Moshe Dayan were infamous for their poolside parties where all the jewish female
'pretty' Israeli agents were used and trained to be honey pot sex objects, with mandatory sex orgies that lasted for days, the
worst of a James Bond type environment but without the glitter.
on the contrary, the secret world of parasites that practice and trade in massive scale rape, war, torture, sex aberrations,
***********, blackmail, extortion, paedophilia, child trafficking, international orphan trafficking, drugs, trafficking underage
sex slaves to be used as dolls and much much worse,
that is who is Jeffrey Epstein is.
The front cover of rape, murder and mayhem international Inc., the go-to-boy of sick Wall Street, Washington DC, the CIA,
NSA, Dyncorp, the power brokers within the DNC and the GOP,
all the usual sick subjects whose code mantra is 'we have unlimited funding', which means the FED, Wall Street, the BIS,
the whole of the Central Bank System that originated in Europe in Venice, and then spread to Amsterdam, the Dutch House of Orange,
London, New York, the British paedophile Empire,
Epstein lives in what is reputed to be the largest private dwelling in New Mexico, on an $18 million, 7,500-acre ranch
which he named Zorro.
Jeffrey Epstein's palatial New Mexico home is relatively near to a top military base. The Epstein home is in Stanley
in New Mexico.
Albuquerque now has a variety of Jewish synagogues and a Chabad house.
Mossad sex party, according to former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky
There were about 25 people in and around the pool and none of them had a stitch of clothing on.
The second-in-command of the Mossad -- today, he is the head -- was there.
Hessner. Various secretaries. It was incredible. Some of the men were not a pretty sight, but most of the girls were
quite impressive. I must say they looked much better than they did in uniform! Most of them were female soldiers assigned
to the office, and were only 18 or 20 years old.
Some of the partiers were in the water playing, some were dancing, others were on blankets to the left and the right
having a fine old time vigorously screwing each other right there...
It was the top brass all right, and they were swapping partners. It really shook me. That's sure not what you expect.
You look at these people as heroes, you look up to them, and then you see them having a sex party by the pool.
-- Ostrovsky, Victor, By Way of Deception, (1990), pg. 96
ReflectoMatic , 2 hours ago
Because what George Webb is saying is so important in expanding the scope of understanding what is going on:
George Webb on youtube
JSBach1 , 3 hours ago
Researcher Wayne Madsen: Trump's Connection to Epstein Needs to Be Exposed
I like Miles' work a lot, but I don't always agree with the results of his studies. There are a great many fabricated events.
Events like those are cover for other very real events. The clowns will fake (or real) blow up townships just to prevent a case
from going to trial or getting news feed, OKC comes to mind. And there's always more than one reason for it behind the BS cover
story. It's tactical. Ep is just another arm of the octopus: Ep is definitely a middle man, a bag man, a front man, an intel
asset (for several agancies no doubt) and he got his cover job as a "financier" along with a client that got rich selling women's
underwear and kids clothes as whitewash. A guy who wrote a paper on how America perceives Israel and how to influence that perception.
That is the definition of magic and it's intel.
Ep definitely uses his own product... He had to be sure he could bounce those children off his clients, for one. Years of
grooming, investing in an asset, categorizing each one. It's an industry, for sure. I don't think the numbers are fabricated.
I don't think his black book was fabricated. Bloomberg was in there, btw, along with Bronfman, and Murdoch. The remoteness of
7500 acres in New Mexico, an Island, the planes, all neon signs that say "SECRET". But, you have to recruit from large population
areas to find suitable victims, er, individuals. I think it's more likely that this is real world and not a manufactured event.
Look: there are theories. I collect theories. Miles is a great researcher and he makes distinctions and observations that
are all very good. Reading him, I throw a lot of theories and music and vomit in the trash after. But when you peel back all
the fake events... the "Kansas"... One day Kansas is gone. Once and for all. What's left is this: there's some very real ****
on the down-low going on that has, until now, been permitted and some people who liked it that way are gonna be on the news
for it. Pelosi's kid tweeted it. What about, say, what might a sheriff of a certain New Mexico county know? Santa Fe is totally
compromised because it's an "Art" hub, for one. The unincorporated location is called "Stanley" which ought to ring bells. Right
by a military base, Kirtland and Los Alamos Demo Army base, god knows what else. It's the perfect M.O. of the fake events Miles
writes about. Miles sees patterns.
There is everything that is not real, and then there is everything that is real. For me it comes down to the Cartesian Brain
in a Vat theory, that, indeed, is "the Matrix" pop culture go-to of today, err, 20 years ago. Red pilled means you can't go
back. Get blue pilled you Get woke and go broke. It doesn't mean that everything is fake, but for all I know 2012 was real and
we live on this timeline now and maybe I am a brain in a vat. So cogito ergo sum. And that is kind of a statement of faith or
belief. It's the deep irony of philosophy. It's the glitch.
Ep is not the psyop. He's the guy you do the psyop to cover up. It's a better question to ask what generation MK Ultra are
we on? What subset? What might Cathy O'Brien have to say about it? Don't flame the victims, or make Miles look stupid because
you think it's all fake. Andrew Breitbart didn't think this **** was fake and he's dead. God bless him.
Theosebes Goodfellow , 3 hours ago
~Those around Wexner were mystified over Wexner's affinity for Epstein.~
Apparently those around Wexner were not familiar with the term "fourteen year-old spinner".
Lumberjack , 3 hours ago
...
Dershowitz was one of several heavy-hitters on Epstein's first legal defense team. Epstein's lead attorney in the Florida
case was Jack Goldberger, who now represents New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. His legal team also included Roy Black,
Jay Lefkowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis and Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor who investigated Bill
Clinton's sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Asked why he took Epstein as a client, given the unsavory nature of his alleged crimes, Dershowitz stated bluntly, "That's
what I do."
"I take controversial cases and I will continue to do so," he told Sinclair Broadcast Group in a Tuesday interview. "I defended
Jeff Epstein for the same reason John Adams defended the people accused of the Boston Massacre
On that note, Schumer said he'll give the money he received to help children and women.
I'd bet twice that amount it goes to Israeli causes. Not to real victims and the kahkzucker gets another nice write off.
Epstein's intel connections must be brought forth. My guess is when Kraft got busted that there were really big names that
are still being hidden. A long time and VERY TRUSTED ZH member that I know a bit and collaborated a bit with on the Linda Green
fiasco caught on and commented about it including providing solid evidence.
Maybe they should stop blaming Iran and Russia and look at Linda herself.
IMHO, 'calling it off because casualties' was to generate a bragging point to use in his
campaign 'look what a nice guy I am for not wanting to hurt people'. There have been a couple
of other things that have happened that look like set pieces to give him crowing points.
"Better to have said nothing"
Totally agree but we will need to wait and see what he says on the stump. If a war starts the
disciples may not think much of rising oil prices, shortages and falling stock markets.
There"s allways a chance that he finally comprehended some of Putin`s wisdom that conflict in
MENA would be a catastrophic disaster for all. There is always a sliver of hope he has the
Neocons close on purpose to limit some of the chaos they create.
I'd say the neocons are convenient – Trump likes being on the brink of war to keep
everyone scared. Fear is his ally. But actual war would be a negative, so he's on a
tightrope.
A very risky strategy, except that I think the rest of the world understands it, and it's
convenient for some other countries, who are using the same strategy to maintain domestic
power.
"... This is just wanton shit-faced stupidity. We are referring to the Trump Administration's escalation of sanctions on Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and its foreign minister, and then the Donald's tweet-storm of bluster, threats and implicit redlines when they didn't take too kindly to this latest act of aggression by Washington. ..."
"... That last point can't be emphasized enough. Iran is zero threat to the American homeland and has never engaged in any hostile action on U.S soil or even threatened the same. ..."
"... To the contrary, Washington's massive naval and military arsenal in the middle east is essentially the occupational force of a naked aggressor that has created mayhem through the Persian Gulf and middle eastern region for the past three decades; and has done so in pursuit of the will-o-wisp of oil security and the neocon agenda of demonizing and isolating the Iranian regime. ..."
"... the demonization of the Iranian regime is based on lies and propaganda ginned up by the Bibi Netanyahu branch of the War Party (that has falsely made Iran an "existential" threat in order to win elections in Israel). ..."
"... Likewise, it has presumed to have an independent foreign policy involving Washington proscribed alliances with the sovereign state of Syria, the leading political party of Lebanon (Hezbollah), the ruling authorities in Baghdad and the reining power in the Yemen capital of Sana'a (the Houthis). All these regimes except the puppet state of Iraq are deemed by Washington to be sources of unsanctioned "regional instability" and Iran's alliances with them have been capriciously labeled as acts of state sponsored terrorism. ..."
"... The same goes for Washington's demarche against Iran's modest array of short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles. These weapons are palpably instruments of self-defense, but Imperial Washington insists their purpose is aggression – unlike the case of practically every other nation which offers its custom to American arms merchants for like and similar weapons. ..."
"... For example, Iran's arch-rival across the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, has more advanced NATO supplied ballistic missiles with even greater range (2,600 km range). So does Israel, Pakistan, India and a half-dozen other nations, which are either Washington allies or have been given a hall-pass in order to bolster US arms exports. ..."
"... In short, Washington's escalating war on Iran is an exercise in global hegemony, not territorial self-defense ..."
"... When the cold-war officially ended in 1991, in fact, the Cheney/neocon cabal feared the kind of drastic demobilization of the US military-industrial complex that was warranted by the suddenly more pacific strategic environment. In response, they developed an anti-Iranian doctrine that was explicitly described as a way of keeping defense spending at high cold war levels. ..."
"... Iranians had a case is beyond doubt. The open US archives now prove that the CIA overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and put the utterly unsuited and megalomaniacal Mohammad Reza Shah on the peacock throne to rule as a puppet in behalf of US security and oil interests. ..."
"... Indeed, in this very context the new Iranian regime proved quite dramatically that it was not hell bent on obtaining nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction. In the midst of Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in the early 1980s the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against biological and chemical weapons. ..."
"... Yet at that very time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces – some of them barely armed teenage boys – with the spotting help of CIA tracking satellites and the concurrence of Washington. So from the very beginning, the Iranian posture was wholly contrary to the War Party's endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for nukes. ..."
"... However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy which rules Iran does not consist of demented war mongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam's WMDs. ..."
"... Then in 1983 the new Iranian regime decided to complete the Bushehr power plant and some additional elements of the Shah's grand plan. But when they attempted to reactivate the French enrichment services contract and buy necessary power plant equipment from the original German suppliers they were stopped cold by Washington. And when the tried to get their $2 billion deposit back, they were curtly denied that, too. ..."
This is just wanton shit-faced stupidity. We are referring to
the Trump Administration's escalation of sanctions on Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and its foreign
minister, and then the Donald's tweet-storm of bluster, threats and implicit redlines when they
didn't take too kindly to this latest act of aggression by Washington.
That last point can't be emphasized enough. Iran is zero threat to the American homeland
and has never engaged in any hostile action on U.S soil or even threatened the same.
To the contrary, Washington's massive naval and military arsenal in the middle east is
essentially the occupational force of a naked aggressor that has created mayhem through the
Persian Gulf and middle eastern region for the past three decades; and has done so in pursuit
of the will-o-wisp of oil security and the neocon agenda of demonizing and isolating the
Iranian regime.
But as we have demonstrated previously, the best cure for high oil prices is the global
market, not the Fifth Fleet. And the demonization of the Iranian regime is based on lies
and propaganda ginned up by the Bibi Netanyahu branch of the War Party (that has falsely made
Iran an "existential" threat in order to win elections in Israel).
Stated differently, the American people have no dog in the political hunts of Washington's
so-called allies in the region; and will be no worse for the wear economically if Washington
were to dispense with its idiotic economic warfare against Iran's 4 million barrel per day oil
industry and allow all exporters in the region to produce and sell every single barrel they can
economically extract.
Viewed in the proper context, Iran's response to the new sanctions and intensified efforts
to destroy their economy was readily warranted:
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called the new sanctions "outrageous and stupid." Mr.
Khamenei, while the political leader of Iran, also is one of the world's leading authorities
for Shia Muslims.
"Would any administration with a bit of wisdom [sanction] the highest authority of a
country? And not only a political authority, a religious, social, spiritual one, and not the
leader of Iran only, the leader of the Islamic revolution all over the world?" Mr. Rouhani said
in a speech broadcast on state television.
He said it was "obvious" that the US was lying about wanting to negotiate with Iran: "You
want us to negotiate with you again?" Mr. Rouhani said, "and at the same time you seek to
sanction the foreign minister too?"
Iran also said these sanctions closed the door on diplomacy and threatened global
stability, as American officials renewed efforts to build a global alliance against
Tehran.
Unfortunately, it didn't take the Donald long to upchuck what amounted to a dangerous
tantrum:
.Iran's very ignorant and insulting statement, put out today, only shows that they do not
understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and
overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John Kerry
& Obama!
Those words are utterly reckless and outrageous. The Donald is carrying water for the
neocons, Bibi and the Saudis without really understanding what he is doing and in the process
is betraying America First and inching closer to an utterly unnecessary conflagration in the
Persian Gulf that will virtually upend the global economy.
Worst of all, as he escalates the confrontation with the Iranian regime, he espouses a pack
of lies and distortions that do no remotely comport with the facts. For instance, the following
tweet is absolutely neocon baloney:
.The wonderful Iranian people are suffering, and for no reason at all. Their leadership
spends all of its money on Terror, and little on anything else. The US has not forgotten Iran's
use of IED's & EFP's (bombs), which killed 2000 Americans, and wounded many
more
The truth of the matter is that the Donald is referring to attacks on US forces by the
Shiite militias in Iraq during Washington's misbegotten invasion and occupation of that
woebegone nation during the last decades. The Shiite live there, constitute the majority of its
electorate, didn't want America there in the first place, and now actually run the government
that Washington placed in power and are totally opposed to Trump's confrontation with their
Shiite compatriots in Iran.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Better still, it is crucial to understand that this entire dangerous escalation is owing to
the fact that the Donald got into his thick head that utter nonsense that the Iran nuke deal
was some kind of disaster, and from there walked-away from the deal and restarted a brutal
economic war against Iran in the guise of sanctions.
But nothing could be further from the truth. The Donald's action to terminate the Iranian
nuclear deal was a complete triumph for the War Party.
It gutted the very idea of America First because Washington's renewed round of
sanctions constitute economic aggression against a country that is no threat to the US homeland
whatsoever.
In fact, Iran did not violate any term of the nuke deal, and as we demonstrate below,
scrupulously adhered to the letter of it. So the real reasons for Trump's abandonment of the
nuke deal have everything to do with the kind of Imperial interventionism that is the
antithesis of America First.
Trump's action, in fact, is predicated on the decades long neocon-inspired Big Lie that Iran
is an aggressive expansionist and terrorism-supporting rogue state which threatens the security
of not just the region, but America too.
But that's flat out poppycock. As we documented last week, the claim that Iran is the
expansionist leader of the Shiite Crescent is based on nothing more than the fact that Tehran
has an independent foreign policy based on its own interests and confessional affiliations
– legitimate relationships that are demonized by virtue of not being approved by
Washington.
Likewise, the official charge that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism is not
remotely warranted by the facts: The listing is essentially a State Department favor to the
Netanyahu branch of the War Party.
The fact is, the Iranian regime with its piddling $14 billion military budget has no means
to attack America militarily and has never threatened to do so. Nor has it invaded any other
country in the region where it was not invited by a sovereign government host.
As Ron Paul cogently observed:
Is Iran really the aggressive one? When you unilaterally pull out of an agreement that
was reducing tensions and boosting trade; when you begin applying sanctions designed to
completely destroy another country's economy; when you position military assets right offshore
of that country; when you threaten to destroy that country on a regular basis, calling it a
campaign of "maximum pressure," to me it seems a stretch to play the victim when that country
retaliates by shooting a spy plane that is likely looking for the best way to attack.
Even if the US spy plane was not in Iranian airspace – but it increasingly looks
like it was – it was just another part of an already-existing US war on Iran. Yes,
sanctions are a form of war, not a substitute for war.
The point is Washington's case is almost entirely bogus. To wit:
Mr. Trump also reiterated his demands Monday at the White House: "We will continue to
increase pressure on Tehran until the regime abandons its dangerous activities and its
aspirations, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons, increased enrichment of uranium,
development of ballistic missiles, engagement in and support for terrorism, fueling of foreign
conflicts, and belligerent acts directed against the United States and its allies."
Let's see about those "dangerous activities and aspirations".
In fact, Iran has no blue water navy that could effectively operate outside of the Persian
Gulf; its longest range warplanes can barely get to Rome without refueling; and its array of
mainly defensive medium and intermediate range missiles cannot strike most of NATO, to say
nothing of the North American continent.
Likewise, it has presumed to have an independent foreign policy involving Washington
proscribed alliances with the sovereign state of Syria, the leading political party of Lebanon
(Hezbollah), the ruling authorities in Baghdad and the reining power in the Yemen capital of
Sana'a (the Houthis). All these regimes except the puppet state of Iraq are deemed by Washington to be sources of
unsanctioned "regional instability" and Iran's alliances with them have been capriciously
labeled as acts of state sponsored terrorism.
The same goes for Washington's demarche against Iran's modest array of short, medium and
intermediate range ballistic missiles. These weapons are palpably instruments of self-defense,
but Imperial Washington insists their purpose is aggression – unlike the case of
practically every other nation which offers its custom to American arms merchants for like and
similar weapons.
For example, Iran's arch-rival across the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, has more advanced NATO
supplied ballistic missiles with even greater range (2,600 km range). So does Israel, Pakistan,
India and a half-dozen other nations, which are either Washington allies or have been given a
hall-pass in order to bolster US arms exports.
In short, Washington's escalating war on Iran is an exercise in global hegemony, not
territorial self-defense. It is a testament to the manner in which the historic notion of
national defense has morphed into Washington's arrogant claim that it constitutes the
"Indispensable Nation" which purportedly stands as mankind's bulwark against global disorder
and chaos among nations.
Likewise, the Shiite theocracy ensconced in Tehran was an unfortunate albatross on the
Persian people, but it was no threat to America's safety and security. The very idea that
Tehran is an expansionist power bent on exporting terrorism to the rest of the world is a giant
fiction and tissue of lies invented by the Washington War Party and its Bibi Netanyahu branch
in order to win political support for their confrontationist policies.
Indeed, the three decade long demonization of Iran has served one overarching purpose.
Namely, it enabled both branches of the War Party to conjure up a fearsome enemy, thereby
justifying aggressive policies that call for a constant state of war and military
mobilization.
When the cold-war officially ended in 1991, in fact, the Cheney/neocon cabal feared the kind
of drastic demobilization of the US military-industrial complex that was warranted by the
suddenly more pacific strategic environment. In response, they developed an anti-Iranian
doctrine that was explicitly described as a way of keeping defense spending at high cold war
levels.
And the narrative they developed to this end is one of the more egregious Big Lies ever to
come out of the beltway. It puts you in mind of the young boy who killed his parents, and then
threw himself on the mercy of the courts on the grounds that he was an orphan!
To wit, during the 1980s the neocons in the Reagan Administration issued their own fatwa
again the Islamic Republic of Iran based on its rhetorical hostility to America. Yet that
enmity was grounded in Washington's 25-year support for the tyrannical and illegitimate regime
of the Shah, and constituted a founding narrative of the Islamic Republic that was not much
different than America's revolutionary castigation of King George.
That the Iranians had a case is beyond doubt. The open US archives now prove that the CIA
overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and put the utterly unsuited and
megalomaniacal Mohammad Reza Shah on the peacock throne to rule as a puppet in behalf of US
security and oil interests.
During the subsequent decades the Shah not only massively and baldly plundered the wealth of
the Persian nation. With the help of the CIA and US military, he also created a brutal secret
police force known as the Savak, which made the East German Stasi look civilized by
comparison.
All elements of Iranian society including universities, labor unions, businesses, civic
organizations, peasant farmers and many more were subjected to intense surveillance by the
Savak agents and paid informants. As one critic described it:
Over the years, Savak became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest, detain,
brutally interrogate and torture suspected people indefinitely. Savak operated its own prisons
in Tehran, such as Qezel-Qalaeh and Evin facilities and many suspected places throughout the
country as well.
Ironically, among his many grandiose follies, the Shah embarked on a massive civilian
nuclear power campaign in the 1970s, which envisioned literally paving the Iranian landscape
with dozens of nuclear power plants.
He would use Iran's surging oil revenues after 1973 to buy all the equipment required from
Western companies – and also fuel cycle support services such as uranium enrichment
– in order to provide his kingdom with cheap power for centuries.
At the time of the Revolution, the first of these plants at Bushehr was nearly complete, but
the whole grandiose project was put on hold amidst the turmoil of the new regime and the onset
of Saddam Hussein's war against Iran in September 1980. As a consequence, a $2 billion deposit
languished at the French nuclear agency that had originally obtained it from the Shah to fund a
ramp-up of its enrichment capacity to supply his planned battery of reactors.
Indeed, in this very context the new Iranian regime proved quite dramatically that it was
not hell bent on obtaining nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction. In the midst
of Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in the early 1980s the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa
against biological and chemical weapons.
Yet at that very time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces
– some of them barely armed teenage boys – with the spotting help of CIA tracking
satellites and the concurrence of Washington. So from the very beginning, the Iranian posture
was wholly contrary to the War Party's endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for
nukes.
However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy which rules Iran does not
consist of demented war mongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own
forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam's WMDs.
Then in 1983 the new Iranian regime decided to complete the Bushehr power plant and some
additional elements of the Shah's grand plan. But when they attempted to reactivate the French
enrichment services contract and buy necessary power plant equipment from the original German
suppliers they were stopped cold by Washington. And when the tried to get their $2 billion
deposit back, they were curtly denied that, too.
To make a long story short, the entire subsequent history of off again/on again efforts by
the Iranians to purchase dual use equipment and components on the international market, often
from black market sources like Pakistan, was in response to Washington's relentless efforts to
block its legitimate rights as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to
complete some parts of the Shah's civilian nuclear project.
Needless to say, it did not take much effort by the neocon "regime change" fanatics which
inhabited the national security machinery, especially after the 2000 election, to spin every
attempt by Iran to purchase even a lowly pump or pipe fitting as evidence of a secret campaign
to get the bomb.
The exaggerations, lies, distortions and fear-mongering which came out of this neocon
campaign are downright despicable. Yet they incepted way back in the early 1990s when George
H.W. Bush actually did reach out to the newly elected government of Hashemi Rafsanjani to bury
the hatchet after it had cooperated in obtaining the release of American prisoners being held
in Lebanon in 1989.
Rafsanjani was self-evidently a pragmatist who did not want conflict with the United States
and the West; and after the devastation of the eight year war with Iraq was wholly focused on
economic reconstruction and even free market reforms of Iran's faltering economy.
It is one of the great tragedies of history that the neocons managed to squelch even George
Bush's better instincts with respect to rapprochement with Tehran.
The Neocon Big Lie About Iranian Nukes And Terrorism
So the prisoner release opening was short-lived – especially after the top post at the
CIA was assumed in 1991 by Robert Gates. As one of the very worst of the unreconstructed cold
war apparatchiks, it can be well and truly said that Gates looked peace in the eye and then
elected to pervert John Quincy Adams' wise maxim by searching the globe for monsters to
fabricate.
In this case the motivation was especially loathsome. Gates had been Bill Casey's right hand
man during the latter's rogue tenure at the CIA in the Reagan administration. Among the many
untoward projects that Gates shepherded was the Iran-Contra affair that nearly destroyed his
career when it blew-up, and for which he blamed the Iranians for its public disclosure.
From his post as deputy national security director in 1989 and then as CIA head Gates pulled
out all the stops to get even. Almost single-handedly he killed-off the White House goodwill
from the prisoner release, and launched the blatant myth that Iran was both sponsoring
terrorism and seeking to obtain nuclear weapons.
Indeed, it was Gates who was the architect of the demonization of Iran that became a staple
of War Party propaganda after the 1991. In time that morphed into the utterly false claim that
Iran is an aggressive wanna be hegemon that is a fount of terrorism and is dedicated to the
destruction of the state of Israel, among other treacherous purposes.
That giant lie was almost single-handedly fashioned by the neocons and Bibi Netanyahu's
coterie of power-hungry henchman after the mid-1990s. Indeed, the false claim that Iran posses
an "existential threat" to Israel is a product of the pure red meat domestic Israeli politics
that have kept Bibi in power for much of the last two decades.
But the truth is Iran has only a tiny fraction of Israel's conventional military capability.
And compared to the latter's 100 odd nukes, Iran has never had a nuclear weaponization program
after a small scale research program was ended in 2003.
That is not merely our opinion. It's been the sober assessment of the nation's top 17
intelligence agencies in the official National Intelligence Estimates ever since 2007. And now
in conjunction with a further study undertaken pursuant to the 2015 nuke deal, the IAEA has
also concluded the Iran had no secret program after 2003.
On the political and foreign policy front, Iran is no better or worse than any of the other
major powers in the Middle East. In many ways it is far less of a threat to regional peace and
stability than the military butchers who now run Egypt on $1.5 billion per year of US aid.
And it is surely no worse than the royal family tyrants who squander the massive oil
resources of Saudi Arabia in pursuit of unspeakable opulence and decadence to the detriment of
the 30 million citizens which are not part of the regime, and who one day may well reach the
point of revolt.
When it comes to the support of terrorism, the Saudis have funded more jihadists and
terrorists throughout the region than Iran ever even imagined.
In fact, Iran is a nearly bankrupt country that has no capability whatsoever to
threaten the security and safety of the citizens of Spokane WA, Peoria IL or anywhere else in
the USA.
Its $460 billion GDP is the size of Indiana's and its 68,000 man military is only slightly
larger than the national guard of Texas.
It is a land of severe mountains and daunting swamps that are not all that conducive to
rapid economic progress and advanced industrialization. It has no blue water navy, no missiles
with more than a few hundred miles of range, and, we must repeat again, has had no nuclear
weapons program for more than a decade.
Moreover, Donald's incessant charge that the Obama Administration gave away the store during
the nuke deal negotiations that led to the JCPA is just blatant nonsense. In fact, the Iranians
made huge concessions on nearly every issue that made a difference.
That included deep concessions on the number of permitted centrifuges at Natanz; the
dismantlement of the Fordow and Arak nuclear operations; the virtually complete liquidation of
its enriched uranium stockpiles; the intrusiveness and scope of the inspections regime; and the
provisions with respect to Iran's so-called "breakout" capacity.
For instance, while every signatory of the non-proliferation treaty has the right to
civilian enrichment, Iran agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges by 70% from 20,000 to
6,000.
And its effective spinning capacity was reduced by significantly more. That's because the
permitted Natanz centrifuges now consist exclusively of its most rudimentary, outdated
equipment – first-generation IR-1 knockoffs of 1970s European models.
Not only was Iran not be allowed to build or develop newer models, but even those remaining
were permitted to enrich uranium to a limit of only 3.75% purity. That is to say, to the
generation of fissile material that is not remotely capable of reaching bomb grade
concentrations of 90%.
Equally importantly, pursuant to the agreement Iran has eliminated enrichment activity
entirely at its Fordow plant – a facility that had been Iran's one truly advanced,
hardened site that could withstand an onslaught of Israeli or US bunker busters.
Instead, Fordow has become a small time underground science lab devoted to medical isotope
research and crawling with international inspectors. In effectively decommissioning Fordow and
thereby eliminating any capacity to cheat from a secure facility – what Iran got in
return was at best a fig leave of salve for its national pride.
The disposition of the reactor at Arak has been even more dispositive. For years, the War
Party has falsely waved the bloody shirt of "plutonium" because the civilian nuclear reactor
being built there was of Canadian "heavy water" design rather than GE or Westinghouse "light
water" design; and, accordingly, when finished it would have generated plutonium as a waste
product rather than conventional spent nuclear fuel rods.
In truth, the Iranians couldn't have bombed a beehive with the Arak plutonium because you
need a reprocessing plant to convert it into bomb grade material. Needless to say, Iran never
had such a plant – nor any plans to build one, and no prospect for getting the requisite
technology and equipment.
But now even that bogeyman no longer exists. Iran removed and destroyed the reactor core of
its existing Arak plant in 2016 and filled it with cement, as attested to by international
inspectors under the JCPA.
As to its already existing enriched stock piles, including some 20% medical-grade material,
97% has been eliminated as per the agreement. That is, Iran now holds only 300 kilograms of its
10,000 kilogram stockpile in useable or recoverable form. Senator Kirk could store what is left
in his wine cellar.
But where the framework agreement decisively shut down the War Party was with respect to its
provision for a robust, comprehensive and even prophylactic inspections regime. All of the
major provision itemized above are being enforced by continuous IAEA access to existing
facilities including its main centrifuge complex at Natanz – along with Fordow, Arak and
a half dozen other sites.
Indeed, the real breakthrough in the JCPA lies in Iran's agreement to what amounts to a
cradle-to-grave inspection regime. It encompasses the entire nuclear fuel chain.
That means international inspectors can visit Iran's uranium mines and milling and fuel
preparation operations. This encompasses even its enrichment equipment manufacturing and
fabrication plants, including centrifuge rotor and bellows production and storage
facilities.
Beyond that, Iran has also been subject to a robust program of IAEA inspections to prevent
smuggling of materials into the country to illicit sites outside of the named facilities under
the agreement. This encompasses imports of nuclear fuel cycle equipment and materials,
including so-called "dual use" items which are essentially civilian imports that can be
repurposed to nuclear uses, even peaceful domestic power generation.
In short, not even a Houdini could secretly breakout of the control box established by the
JCPA and confront the world with some kind of fait accompli threat to use the bomb.
That's because what it would take to do so is absurdly implausible. That is, Iran would need
to secretly divert thousands of tons of domestically produced or imported uranium and then
illicitly mill and upgrade such material at secret fuel preparation plants.
It would also need to secretly construct new, hidden enrichment operations of such massive
scale that they could house more than 10,000 new centrifuges. Moreover, they would need to
build these massive spinning arrays from millions of component parts smuggled into the country
and transported to remote enrichment operations – all undetected by the massive complex
of spy satellites overhead and covert US ands Israeli intelligence agency operatives on the
ground in Iran.
Finally, it would require the activation from scratch of a weaponization program which has
been dormant according to the National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) for more than a decade.
And then, that the Iranian regime – after cobbling together one or two bombs without
testing them or their launch vehicles – would nevertheless be willing to threaten to use
them sight unseen.
So just stop it!
You need to be a raging, certifiable paranoid boob to believe that the Iranians can break
out of this framework box based on a secret new capacity to enrich the requisite fissile
material and make a bomb.
In the alternative scenario, you have to be a willful know-nothing to think that if it
publicly repudiates the agreement, Iran could get a bomb overnight before the international
community could take action.
To get enough nuclear material to make a bomb from the output of the 5,000 "old and slow"
centrifuges remaining at Natanz would take years, not months. And if subject to an embargo on
imported components, as it would be after a unilateral Iranian repudiation of the JCPA, it
could not rebuild its now dismantled enrichment capacity rapidly, either.
At the end of the day, in fact, what you really have to believe is that Iran is run by
absolutely irrational, suicidal madmen. After all, even if they managed to defy the immensely
prohibitive constraints described above and get one or a even a few nuclear bombs, what in the
world would they do with them?
Drop them on Tel Aviv? That would absolutely insure Israel's navy and air force would
unleash its 100-plus nukes and thereby incinerate the entire industrial base and major
population centers of Iran.
Indeed, the very idea that deterrence would fail even if a future Iranian regime were to
defy all the odds, and also defy the fatwa against nuclear weapons issued by their Supreme
Leader, amounts to one of the most preposterous Big Lies ever concocted.
There is no plausible or rational basis for believing it outside of the axis-of-evil
narrative. So what's really behind Trump's withdrawal from the JCPA is nothing more than the
immense tissue of lies and unwarranted demonization of Iran that the War Party has fabricated
over the last three decades.
Iran Never Wanted the Bomb
At bottom, all the hysteria about the mullahs getting the bomb was based on the wholly
theoretically supposition that they wanted civilian enrichment only as a stepping stone to the
bomb. Yet the entirety of the US intelligence complex as well as the attestation of George W.
Bush himself say it isn't so.
As we have previously indicated, the blinding truth of that proposition first came in the
National Intelligence Estimates of 2007. These NIEs represent a consensus of all 17 US
intelligence agencies on salient issues each year, and on the matter of Iran's nuclear weapons
program they could not have been more unequivocal:
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear
weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We assess with moderate confidence Tehran
had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it
currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
"Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to
international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach
rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military
costs."
Moreover, as former CIA analyst Ray McGovern noted recently, the NIE's have not changed
since then.
An equally important fact ignored by the mainstream media is that the key judgments of
that NIE have been revalidated by the intelligence community every year since.
More crucially, there is the matter of "Dubya's" memoirs. Near the end of his term in office
he was under immense pressure to authorize a bombing campaign against Iran's civilian nuclear
facilities.
But once the 2007 NIEs came out, even the "mission accomplished" President in the bomber
jacket was caught up short. As McGovern further notes,
Bush lets it all hang out in his memoir, Decision Points. Most revealingly, he complains
bitterly that the NIE "tied my hands on the military side" and called its findings
"eye-popping."
A disgruntled Bush writes, "The backlash was immediate ."I don't know why the NIE was
written the way it was. Whatever the explanation, the NIE had a big impact – and not a
good one."
Spelling out how the Estimate had tied his hands "on the military side," Bush included
this (apparently unedited) kicker: "But 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?"
So there you have it. How is it possible to believe that the Iranian's were hell-bent on a
nuclear holocaust when they didn't even have a nuclear weapons program?
And why in the world is the Donald taking America and the world to the edge of a utterly
unnecessary war in order to force a better deal when the one he shit-canned was more than
serviceable?
The answer to that momentous questions lies with the Bombzie Twins (Pompeo and Bolton) and
the malign influence of the Donald's son-in-law and Bibi Netanyahu toady, Jared Kushner.
Rarely have a small group of fanatics more dangerously and wantonly jeopardized the
security, blood and treasure of the American people.
It is interesting that Trump destiny now depends on geopolitical events he can't control namely actions of Iran and China.
Trump foreign policy appears to be driven by a combination of resentment and arrogance -- not a good combination for survival of
Trump and/or mankind
Was with Iran might result in high oil prices would kill the already anemic global growth and cause a recession (I guess
the volatility in oil prices will go through the roof at that point), Iran can destabilize the global economy by destroying most
of the oil production infrastructure around the gulf.
While Lyndon Johnson had chosen not running for reelection in 1968 because anti-war sentiment was high, G W Bush who was
reelected and the USA have now contractor army and casualties without draft does not matter much.
Notable quotes:
"... More likely they attack Saudi Arabia directly. Same impact, more justifiable if not outright popular. No one likes Prince Bone Saw. ..."
"... Iran could take those 10 million barrels a day away in 15 minutes. ..."
China will play a large roll in whether trump get re-elected.
If they decide they prefer his dysfunctional governance to his opponent, then they will engage
in a trade deal that will allow to trump to declare victory. It will likely be a very
superficial victory.
If they decide they would prefer to engage with a different administration, they will likely
refrain from a trade deal until after the election.
Have you asked yourself why Putin preferred trump? The answer is not pretty (for trump, or the
USA).
This is probably an absurd point of view. But in my opinion, it might be in Iran's interest
to drag the U.S into war, probably as indirectly as possible. That way they might
significantly reduce the chance of Trump being re-elected. (Obviously lives will be
sacrificed in this scenario)
The question is if it would work and would a Democrat president stop the war and go into the
same JCPOA deal again. Who knows. Very unpredictable.
Well, Mike, as absurd IMO is that Iran would risk self-destruction to get rid of Trump. He's
certainly a PITA for them, but closing the Strait of Hormuz to crash the global economy and
to blame it on Trump wouldn't work: Trump could blame it all on Iran while keeping on cooking
a controlled conflict with them, showing the world that the US doesn't depend on oil from any
other continent.
This would be a very difficult situation for a Democrat to step in and to
promise a better solution. The US would be relatively well off compared to Asia and Europe
and even could emerge out of such a constellation relatively more powerful.
But it could also
end up in a terrible mess. As you wrote: Who knows. Very unpredictable.
"... Nobody at the Pentagon of any consequence. This is a massive opportunity for the president to do what he seems to be insinuating he wants to do, and that is to say to have himself be the only person making any decision in the world, but it's also because of his disingenuousness, his narcissism, his ego and the very fact that he contends that he's in control for this bureaucracy, this massive imperial bureaucracy, to take over. ..."
"... So the only conclusion I can come to is that Donald Trump is an absolute genius -- you will excuse me if I don't arrive at that conclusion -- or he's an inexperienced, narcissistic, egotistical man who's going to get in big trouble sooner or later, if he's not already. ..."
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Well, John Bolton stands first and foremost. I'm told right
now that with the lack of leadership at the Pentagon, Bolton treats the Pentagon as if it were
his vassal state. I'm told that Mike Pompeo is pretty much the same way. Let's look at the
strategic genius we have dealing with Iran right here. Mike Pompeo, a former Army Captain. Wow,
there's a strategic genius for you. Tom Cotton, former Army Captain. Wow, there's another
strategic genius for you.
Nobody at the Pentagon of any consequence. This is a massive opportunity for the
president to do what he seems to be insinuating he wants to do, and that is to say to have
himself be the only person making any decision in the world, but it's also because of his
disingenuousness, his narcissism, his ego and the very fact that he contends that he's in
control for this bureaucracy, this massive imperial bureaucracy, to take over.
I've studied every president since Harry Truman, studied the decision-making process of
every one of them. I've been up close and personal with four of those presidents'
decision-making processes. Some of them are more competent, some of them are very incompetent
depending on the particular decision. But across the board, none of them work like this
administration. Not a single one of them even remotely resembles this administration. So
the only conclusion I can come to is that Donald Trump is an absolute genius -- you will excuse
me if I don't arrive at that conclusion -- or he's an inexperienced, narcissistic, egotistical
man who's going to get in big trouble sooner or later, if he's not already.
GREG WILPERT And what about the other allies of the United States? What role are they
playing? I'm particularly thinking, of course, of Saudi Arabia and Israel.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Yes. I think Mike Pompeo went to Riyadh. Others have been
dispatched -- Bolton. And they're saying sorry, we told you it was coming. But standby, it will
come. I think we have outside Washington some really powerful figures pushing for this too.
Bibi Netanyahu, Mohammad bin Salman, and maybe even Mohammed bin Zayed in the Emirates, all
want bombs to fall on Iran. I don't think they want an invasion, but that shows how little they
know about strategy because if bombs fall on Iran, here's what will happen. No matter how
precise, how around-the-clock, how devastating, no matter where they're dropped -- on the
nuclear complex, on the IRGC, on the Quds force, wherever they might be dropped.
All those bombs will do besides destroying infrastructure and killing people, all they will
do is force the Iranian people to coalesce around this very, very bad government, which they
aren't right now. They're finding it corrupter and corrupter. And so, they are as against their
government as they've ever been, as a bloc, all echelons of Iranian society, but we will force
them together with those bombs and they'll stand with their government. The second thing they
will do is go right back to North Korea, which they did when I was in government. They'll learn
more about going underground. They will go underground. They'll build a nuclear weapon. They'll
test it and then they'll say, okay, now come get us. And we'll do the same thing we're doing
with North Korea right now and they know that we will not invade. So what do we do after we've
dropped the bombs? We figure all this out real quickly and we invade. And invasion of Iran --
you heard it here -- is a disaster in the making.
GREG WILPERT Now, Iran says that it would be willing to negotiate if first the sanctions are
lifted. Earlier this year though, Mike Pompeo outlined twelve separate issues for negotiation
-- several of which go far beyond the issue of nuclear power; such as ending support for
Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen. Now, it looks like there's a complete impasse
basically between the two sides. Do you think there is any chance that this conflict could
still be worked out peacefully, given how far apart the two sides are?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I don't want to dismiss it entirely because I think people like Bill
Burns and others who did some of the significant negotiating for President Obama that led to
the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement with Iran. I think that is still possible. I think there's
still places like Oman that would offer their good offices, like maybe Prime Minister Abe from
Japan or Sisi in Egypt. There are a lot of people out there who would offer their good offices
and might be able to affect some kind of beginning of talks. Here's the problem though. As long
as you have a thug like Mike Pompeo calling other world leaders "thugs," principally those in
Iran, and using that kind of language, and treating them the way we treat them, then there's no
respect being shown by the United States for the other party. Iran -- a 5,000-year-old
civilization. A country for a long-time homogeneous, 50-plus percent are Persian, 80 million
people, a vast country -- You've got to show that country some respect. You can't talk to them
the way Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton do. You can't disrespect them consistently like that and
expect them to ever come talk to you. So that has to stop, and I don't see it stopping anytime
soon -- let alone, taking on a more positive turn. And therefore, I don't see how we can
talk.
GREG WILPERT Okay. Well we're going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Colonel
Larry Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College
of William and Mary. Thanks again, Larry, for having joined us today.
Thanks for this, I largely agree with Col. Wilkerson’s impression, and his comment
about disrespect, among other things.
It’s a minor detail, but I wonder on what he bases his view of the level of corruption
in the society there. Does he think it’s American-level corruption, or less, or more? The
type of nuance and detailed information that would be required to make that type of judgement
in my view is difficult to find in the West these days.
It’s unfortunate and telling in a way also that in the article RepubAnon mentions
above, the Middle East Monitor didn’t manage to get Khamenei’s name right
either.
Trump has finally gone full banana peel. Anyone who is able to stand up straight for five
minutes without falling over backward cannot still doubt that Trump is a dangerous lunatic,
so intellectually stunted, ignorant and narcissistic (constantly measuring the heat and
brightness of the spotlight he desperately craves, like a hypochondriac taking his
temperature and blood pressure every 10 minutes) and so easily teed up and maneuvered in this
grotesque Iran con by psychotic madmen/sycophants like Pompous & Bolton and
breathtakingly devious vipers like Bibi Satanyahu and Saudi butcher MSOB. It is plain as
doomsday.
Trump’s repudiation of the JCPOA has created an interesting situation. No country
should deal with the US unless the contents of the deal offered have prior approval from both
the House and the Senate.
Scott Ritter had a good interview with Chris Hedges detailing Pompeo’s ridiculous
preconditions. Iran should start setting their own.
As for who was responsible for the damage to the two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, I think
the market called BS on it. One filled with naptha, the other with kerosene/jet1… not
hard to make them go “BOOM”. I’m waiting for an LNG tanker to go up –
they have calorific equivalents close to low yield nuclear weapons.
They’ll learn more about going underground. They will go underground.
They’ll build a nuclear weapon. They’ll test it and then they’ll say,
okay, now come get us. And we’ll do the same thing we’re doing with North Korea
right now and they know that we will not invade. So what do we do after we’ve dropped
the bombs? We figure all this out real quickly and we invade. And invasion of Iran—
you heard it here— is a disaster in the making.
This is an interesting point that I must admit I hadn’t thought of before. It seems
obvious to anyone with even a modicum of military knowledge that an invasion of Iran would be
a gigantic and maybe impossible task, it would require an effort significantly larger than
the Vietnam War – almost certainly the largest mobilisation since WWII, and one with no
guarantee whatever of even limited success. When you read ‘insider’ articles on
the topic there is a general assumption that a war with Iran is something very different
– essentially, a stand off assault intended to cripple Iran through air strikes.
But it may well be that Bolton and his crazies (plus the Saudis and Israelis) are actually
playing a double game with the Pentagon. They are persuading them that all that’s
needed is a manageable air and naval war (which is comfortable ground for US military
strategists), while full well knowing that Iran is highly unlikely to collapse under that
sort of stress. Bit by bit, the US will be dragged into a ground war, one created by the
unstoppable momentum of a large scale air strike. This may well be the neocons actual
strategy.
No, Trump didn't become President last night. Last night was the culmination of two and a
half years of incredibly stupid foreign policy by a man who clearly doesn't know what he is
doing and us unfit to be the President. Obama left Trump with a situation where a wise
leader could have taken the deal endorsed by every other important nation on the planet and
created a detente with Iran. Instead, he handed policy over to the most beligarant war
hawks and gave them free reign to drive our country to the brink of a disastrous war. And
now we are supposed to congratulate Trump for failing to pull the trigger on the action
that every single step he had taken until now has been leading?
When you take the job of President of the United States, you don't get to be graded on a
curve. The fact that he didn't make the worst possible choice at the end of a long chain of
bad choices doesn't make him a good President.
"... It is utterly bizarre to hear people who believe Trump is unfit to lead seem disappointed that he isn't taking us to war. ..."
"... This is a crisis of his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it. ..."
"... The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will change his mind after about the same amount of reflection. ..."
"... Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock and load" the American military in the future. For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk" advisors are getting closer and closer to hitting pay dirt. By the way, who are his "dove" advisors? ..."
"... If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his 10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching Tucker. ..."
"... Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine - first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he hears on Fox News to start it all over again. ..."
"... "It does not require Nostradamus-like skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop routine Trump appears to be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster." ..."
"... the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the Constitution. ..."
"... And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con. ..."
No matter how laudable averting war is, the fact is that we would have never been in this
situation if Trump had not unilaterally abandoned the Iran deal. This is a crisis of his
own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it.
The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is
quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will
change his mind after about the same amount of reflection.
I don't know. Maybe a wise president would not have appointed Bolton and Pompeo in the first
place. Nor would a wise president have had a $130 million drone flying over Iranian air space
(or right on its border).
Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets
enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock
and load" the American military in the future. For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk"
advisors are getting closer and closer to hitting pay dirt. By the way, who are his "dove"
advisors?
Please, he didn't even know about projected casualties until ten minutes before the attack
was to be launched, no doubt because he's too lazy smart to attend planning
meetings/briefings.
If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his
10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching Tucker.
Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine
- first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he
hears on Fox News to start it all over again.
But just because on this pass he happened to randomly bounce off of a "good" bumper, we're
supposed to congratulate him for finally "becoming President". The only thing bizarre here is
the contortions his supporters put themselves through to try to deny what is obvious to
everyone else.
If I go to my neighbors front yard with a gun, point it at their house, then don't shoot, I
am not practicing restraint. I should be arrested for brandishing a firearm. This article is
crop.
Lighten up, folks. Obviously, Antle's headline, "The Night Donald Trump Became President," is
a play on the same words that a lot of talking heads (not just unreconstructed
neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, but "mainstream" centrists like Fareed Zakaria) used when
Trump bombed Syria for the first time.
He's being facetious, not serious. He isn't praising Trump or his "B-Team" for their
restraint (on the contrary, they have created a crisis for no good reason and have brought us
to the brink of war as a result) so much as he's criticizing the media for its
warmongering.
The media is actually trying to bait the President into a unilateral act of war against
another country that hasn't attacked us and couldn't threaten us even if it did.
"It does not require Nostradamus-like skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop
routine Trump appears to be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster."
At this point, I am almost afraid to check the latest news-with tapeworm Bolton, it is a
matter of time before the situation blows up.
Re: "If Trump continues to break with this pattern, however, it will be less celebrated
in Washington than it would deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper
place would be a truly presidential act."
However, note that Trump refuses to concede any Imperial authority to wage war that
illegally violates the Constitution. He just chose not to start a war with Iran - this time.
(And also note that the Pentagon is always happy to oblige the Imperial President and kill
and destroy without question.)
So the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial
President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and
Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the
illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the
Constitution.
And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in
to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con.
"... This is a crisis of his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it. ..."
"... The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will change his mind after about the same amount of reflection. ..."
"... "If Trump continues to break with this pattern, however, it will be less celebrated in Washington than it would deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper place would be a truly presidential act." ..."
...This Administration's handling of Iran, as compared to the last, is anything but stupid.
Unless, of course, you're of the opinion we should be going to war, and you're pissed that
this President made the right decision at the right time. Nice try, because thinking the
way you are is stupid.
No matter how laudable averting war is, the fact is that we would have never been in this
situation if Trump had not unilaterally abandoned the Iran deal. This is a crisis of
his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it.
The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump
is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will
change his mind after about the same amount of reflection.
I don't know. Maybe a wise president would not have appointed Bolton and Pompeo in the
first place. Nor would a wise president have had a $130 million drone flying over Iranian
air space (or right on its border).
Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets
enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock
and load" the American military in the future.
For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk" advisors are getting closer and closer to
hitting pay dirt.
Well, this article vanquished my very recent admiration for Michael Brendan Dougherty,
acquired by way of Mr. Dreher.
"articulates a classical Augustinian just war argument ..."
That's like claiming Mrs O'Leary's cow that kicked over the lantern and burned Chicago
to the ground was articulating the finer points of preventing forest fires originated by
Smokey the Bear.
Do the writers here do a little physical stretching before contorting yourselves into
pretzel shapes trying to justify every lantern Trump kicks over into poles of dry hay as he
goes along?
Of course conservative Christians hate pulling back from imminent, and possibly nuclear
war. When haven't they in American history?
Please, he didn't even know about projected casualties until ten minutes before the attack
was to be launched, no doubt because he's too lazy smart to attend planning
meetings/briefings.
If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his
10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching
Tucker.
Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine -
first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he
hears on Fox News to start it all over again. But just because on this pass he happened to
randomly bounce off of a "good" bumper, we're supposed to congratulate him for finally
"becoming President". The only thing bizarre here is the contortions his supporters put
themselves through to try to deny what is obvious to everyone else.
If I go to my neighbors front yard with a gun, point it at their house, then don't shoot, I
am not practicing restraint. I should be arrested for brandishing a firearm. This article
is crop.
Lighten up, folks. Obviously, Antle's headline, "The Night Donald Trump Became President,"
is a play on the same words that a lot of talking heads (not just unreconstructed
neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, but "mainstream" centrists like Fareed Zakaria) used
when Trump bombed Syria for the first time. He's being facetious, not serious. He isn't
praising Trump or his "B-Team" for their restraint (on the contrary, they have created a
crisis for no good reason and have brought us to the brink of war as a result) so much as
he's criticizing the media for its warmongering. The media is actually trying to bait the
President into a unilateral act of war against another country that hasn't attacked us and
couldn't threaten us even if it did.
"It does not require Nostradamus-like
skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop routine Trump appears to
be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster."
At this point, I am almost afraid to check the latest news-with tapeworm bolton, it is a
matter of time before the situation blows up.
Re: "If Trump continues to break with this
pattern, however, it will be less celebrated in Washington than it would
deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper place would
be a truly presidential act."
However, note that Trump refuses to concede any Imperial authority to wage war that
illegally violates the Constitution. He just chose not to start a war with Iran - this
time. (And also note that the Pentagon is always happy to oblige the Imperial President and
kill and destroy without question.)
So the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial
President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and
Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the
illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the
Constitution.
And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in
to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con.
This type of article is the reason I read The American Conservative. Thank you for
addressing this important issue from a cautious and realistic perspective.
Although Donald Trump and I are on opposite sides of the fence on nearly every issue, I
do prefer his restrained foreign policy instincts to the hawkish ones of Hillary
Clinton.
Goodness you people and your Nobel prize obsession. The last guy got one he didn't deserve
so I should get one too. Whether the decision was presidential or not is hinged on motive
in my view.
If it was an assessment that if our drone did in fly over US airspace, then it
represented a legitimate target for Iran - then certainly critical thinking as expressed
has some merit to sound management.
If the matter was decided on the messiness of conflict and calculating one's political
carreer, the level of sound management is simply not a factor.
THIS is what white supremacy looks like: Punish Iran because one day in the far off future
they may develop an atomic bomb but gift Israel $3 billion a year while it harbors hundreds
of nukes. Meanwhile, pat head choppers like Saudi Arabia on the head -- As long as they
buys billions in US weapons and force nations to use US dollars to buy oil.
Do you realize that Iran is an Aryan nation, which would make them white? Israel is a
Jewish nation, which most white supremacists hate. And Saudi Arabia is an Arab country,
which would not make it a white country.
So how in the world is this what white supremacy looks like?
"... If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit down and talk. ..."
"... Nope, said the Iranians. If you launch even a token attack then we will reply with everything we have got, and so will Hezbollah and so will Syria. Your call, Donald. ..."
"... That's the reality, apparently. One spark from Trump and the entire region goes up in flames. ..."
"how long before Iran realizes it will lose and calls on all of its asymmetric
regional forces to attack in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia and the Straits
of Hormuz"
Oh, about 12 hours, there or thereabouts. That is Iran's "Trump card". If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token
sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit
down and talk.
Nope, said the Iranians. If you launch even a token attack then we will reply with
everything we have got, and so will Hezbollah and so will Syria. Your call, Donald.
That's the reality, apparently. One spark from Trump and the entire region goes up in
flames.
President Donald Trump likes to think of himself as a statesman, an author, an A-level negotiator, but at heart, he's one thing:
an insult comic.
Every day in D.C. is a roast, the insults and belittling nicknames wielded like tiny comedy bullets. And if you haven't seen enough
of the fusillade on Twitter, all you need to do is turn on late night TV. Television comedy has a strange, symbiotic relationship
with the real political world, something between a feedback loop and a funhouse mirror....
Trump was eager to boast about Moscow's withdrawal of its troops from Venezuela, but it
turned out that he or someone else in the administration just made it up:
The Kremlin said on Tuesday it didn't know where U.S. President Donald Trump had got the
idea Moscow had removed most of its military specialists from Venezuela, who it said
continued to work there.
Trump tweeted on Monday that Russia had told the United States it had removed "most of
their people" from Venezuela, where Moscow has maintained close military and economic ties
with socialist President Nicolas Maduro.
Trump's Venezuela policy is a shambles, and Russia previously brushed off his ultimatum to
remove their forces from the country. It isn't surprising that he would try to spin any
development in his favor, but in this case it seems that he just invented something out of thin
air so that his Venezuela policy wouldn't look quite so feckless. He has no genuine successes
that he can talk about, so he has to have pretend victories instead. The original tweet is
still up:
Claiming that "Russia informed" him of this thing that didn't happen makes it even sillier,
because it immediately prompted the Russian government to announce that they couldn't have
informed Trump about something that hadn't occurred. Now that Russia has corrected the record,
the president looks even more ridiculous than usual.
This episode isn't that important by itself, but it shows how easily Trump can be convinced
of the reality of things that haven't happened and how readily he will accept any story, no
matter how unfounded it may be, if it flatters him and bolsters his agenda. That makes him
unusually easy to manipulate and provoke, and it makes him an exceptionally easy mark for
misinformation. That puts the president's decision-making completely at the mercy of the
advisers that control what he sees and hears.
that his Venezuela policy wouldn't look quite so feckless.
Not a Trump fan, but is Trump's Venezuela policy feckless? Or just Trump somehow
understands that it is not our problem and/or military intervention is just a bad investment.
For the life of me, I don't understand why Russia desires to part of the Venezuelan mess, but
most of their interference is minimal in nature and really has little impact on the
situation. I get the Bay Of Bolton was half assed coup that probably did more damage to
Guaido chances for new elections. (Guaido is being painted as the Trump Imperialism candidate
which is not popular.)
The big question is why this is not China's problem? At this point, Venezuela is
completely with them.
Re: "Trump's Venezuela policy is a shambles, and Russia previously brushed off his
ultimatum to remove their forces from the country."
Agree. But the larger subtext is that the U.S. now has zero credibility with
anything . The assumption by every country on the planet has to be that the U.S. word
is not worth squat.
Fat Pompeo with his big mouth, "We lie, cheat and steal" mind-dump says it all. The
Russians are anything but saints, but they knew that the U.S. planned on having Russia
ejected from its Crimean Naval Base in Sevastopol after the coup that Nitwit Nuland and her
barrel of CIA monkeys engineered.
Similarly, the Russians know that if/when the U.S. puts sock puppet Guaido in power, they
will ensure he stiffs the Russians out of all of their claims and assets in Venezuela.
The Russians don't want to wrestle with the Gorilla, but they have no other choice.
Given the way the dealings with North Korea have gone, I expect that Trump will soon be
announcing that Kim Jong-Un has destroyed all his nuclear weapons and pledged not to build
any more. Needless to say, it will not have happened.
But, as they say, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me. The question
really becomes why so many of Trump's followers continue to believe everything he says when
he lies so blatantly so often.
"The question really becomes why so many of Trump's followers continue to believe
everything he says when he lies so blatantly so often."
I don't know that they do. I tend to think that they just hate what has happened to the
country since Reagan and Clinton so much that they just want Trump to keep bashing Congress
over the head, even with stupidity.
Not to mention that humans have an innate exploitable weakness: the desire to transfer
someone else's perceived greatness on to themselves. Hence the inclination of sports fans and
adoration of the military.
So "Team America" is great, therefore I am great, and Trump represents us, therefore Trump
is great.
One should not wish ill on any other human being, even though i have contemplated several
slapstick scenarios involving certain politicians, however
Donald Trump is in the process of discovering that one cannot ignore Reality, since it
Bites, that live is not a reality TV show (the most unreal thing on television), and that
chickens do indeed come home to roost.
Unfortunately, it's been a difficult learning curve, and pathetic boasts to the contrary,
he has managed to turn both the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party into a pile of
smoking rubble.
It conservatism can be rebuilt in a score of years, it would be a miracle. More like, a
generation.
Trump's Venezuelan policy is a series of hallucination's. This article just describes the
most recent. It begins with the hallucination that Maduro is a dictator, when in reality he
won an election in May 2018 with 67% of the vote in an election that more than 150
international election observers unanimously agreed met all international standards for
democratic elections. It follows with the hallucination that the Venezuelan military would
join the US in rising up against their elected president rather than support the
constitutional government. It continues with the hallucination that the people of Venezuela
would join a US-inspired coup against the president they had just re-elected rather than join
a 2 million person plus civilian militia to defend against a US attack. And, it continues
with the hallucination that Juan Guaido is the interim president when his self-appointment
violated the Venezuelan Constitution and the United Nations and Venezuelan law recognize
Nicolas Maduro as the legitimate president of Venezuela.
The antidote of these ongoing hallucinatory experiences is for Trump to no longer trust
his advisors and end the US coup attempt, which has already failed multiple times in
Venezuela. John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Elliot Abrams have made Trump see hallucinations
that are complete falsehoods. They have led the president into an embarrassing trap that he
now needs to get out of. They have made Trump look like a fool.
It is time for Trump to take steps to normalize relations with Venezuela. That begins with
a mutual Protecting Power Agreement between the US and Venezuela for Switzerland to be a
Protecting Power of the US Embassy in Caracas and Turkey to be a Protecting of the Venezuelan
Embassy in Washington, DC. Following from that the US and Venezuela should negotiate the sale
of Venezuelan resources, primarily oil, in return for the end of the illegal unilateral
coercive measures (inaccurately called sanctions) against Venezuela. Negotiating with
Venezuela will be less expensive than a war that will become a quagmire that will end in
failure after costing more than $1 trillion and causing chaos in the region. Then, Trump and
Maduro should meet to chart a course that begins with mutual respect for the independence and
sovereignty of each nation and then determines where the two nations interests are consistent
with each other. It is time to leave the hallucinations behind and come back to reality.
The ease with which Trump is manipulated and provoked can be added to the explanation of why
Bibi is now in possession of Jerusalem and war against Iran is a high probability. That
should terrify Americans.
"... The latest threat to impose new tariffs on imports from Mexico shows that Trump is interested in using economic threats and punishment mainly to pick fights, and then once he has picked the fight he cites the conflict he started as proof of how "tough" he is. He sets conditions that other governments cannot or will not meet, and then seeks to penalize them for "failing" to agree to unrealistic terms. The problem isn't just that Trump is liable to reverse course and sabotage his own agreements once they are made, but that other governments have absolutely no incentive to make an agreement with him in the first place. Trump never offers positive incentives for cooperation, but relies instead on inflicting economic pain in an attempt to bully the other government into submission. Of course, bullying tactics tend to backfire, especially when the bully's demands seem impossible or unreasonable. ..."
Kimberly Ann Elliott
warns about the consequences of the president's latest tantrum-cum-threat, this time
against Mexico:
Even if there is a deal, and the tariffs are averted, American negotiators will have to
deal with the consequences of Trump's bullying around the world. China, the European Union
and Japan are all in the midst of trade negotiations with the Trump administration, and their
leaders are warily watching what is going on. Under these circumstances, why would any of
them sign an agreement with the United States that Trump could undo with a tweet? [bold
mine-DL] The chances of successfully concluding trade negotiations with China, in particular,
just got a lot harder. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer reportedly wants to keep
some of the tariffs on Chinese exports and reserve the option to reimpose others as part of
an enforcement mechanism in any deal. Beijing was already resisting that demand and is now
likely to harden its opposition.
In the meantime, there is the other constant question of the Trump era: Where is Congress?
The Constitution delegates authority to regulate trade to Congress. For good reasons,
Congress began delegating some of that authority to the executive branch after its passage of
the Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation helped deepen and lengthen the Great Depression. Congress
also recognized that the executive branch needed flexibility to respond to international
emergencies and national security threats, and it has provided broad authority over the years
allowing the president to impose economic sanctions. But Trump has stretched that authority
beyond all recognition, while Congress has done nearly nothing in response.
The latest threat to impose new tariffs on imports from Mexico shows that Trump is
interested in using economic threats and punishment mainly to pick fights, and then once he has
picked the fight he cites the conflict he started as proof of how "tough" he is. He sets
conditions that other governments cannot or will not meet, and then seeks to penalize them for
"failing" to agree to unrealistic terms. The problem isn't just that Trump is liable to reverse
course and sabotage his own agreements once they are made, but that other governments have
absolutely no incentive to make an agreement with him in the first place. Trump never offers
positive incentives for cooperation, but relies instead on inflicting economic pain in an
attempt to bully the other government into submission. Of course, bullying tactics tend to
backfire, especially when the bully's demands seem impossible or unreasonable.
Congress' abdication of its responsibilities is an ongoing problem, but Trump's abuses of
power may be starting to wake them from their torpor. Trump keeps exploiting loopholes and
exceptions in existing laws that he can use to push through pointless, destructive tariffs or
outrageous arms sales to despotic governments. So far Congress has failed to push back and has
taken no action to close the loopholes that he has repeatedly abused, but between the bogus
arms sale "emergency" and this latest tariff threat that could be about to change. It certainly
needs to change before Trump's preference for waging economic war against everyone else throws
the economy into a recession.
There are at least some signs that members of the Senate are serious about fighting Trump's
bogus arms sale "emergency." Al-Monitor
reports :
During the interview in his office, Van Hollen said he "will be working through the
appropriations process" on the Senate foreign aid panel to place new restrictions on US
support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
He also vowed to close a loophole that the Trump administration recently used to bypass a
congressional hold on arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates by citing an
emergency threat posed by Iran. The Maryland Democrat argued that Trump has not provided
"good evidence" to justify the claim.
Opposing Trump on this bogus "emergency" will be a good start, and more members of Congress
need to do the same in response to these arbitrary and unnecessary tariffs. The president is
not just pushing through bad policies, but he is doing so by committing repeated abuses of
power. It is Congress' responsibility to check those abuses and rein in an executive that has
been out of control for far too long.
Another problem with his negotiating tactics is that they require the counterparty to accept
public humiliation. Imagine you had to represent a democratically elected government, or some
supreme council, and explain to your constituents why America's president bullied you and you
responded with concessions. How would that be tenable, even if the agreement had otherwise
good aspects for you? Countries will even spite themselves to avoid humiliation. This is
central to why Trump is really bad at making actual deals.
Add to that the whole point of trade agreements is to help commerce–but no one in
business can make long term plans when the tariff and regulatory regime is so erratic. You
can't make a deal based on expecting a 10% tariff on your goods when you have good reason the
tariff can be much higher or lower a month from now.
The problem is not limited to Trump. The problem is that the U.S. governance model is busted
in several dimensions. One being that Congressional transfer of power and authority to the
President is a one-way ratchet because of the requirement to overturn a certain veto for any
powers the Congress wants to rescind.
And the requirements to amend the Constitution amount to poison pills that can't be
effectively neutralized.
There are a lot of interdependent, even synergistic political pathologies happening right
now and I'm not sure that they can be fixed.
If Trump makes some of our vassals stand up for themselves and makes our Congress actually do
its job, then that will be some of the few good things to come from this Administration.
Trump's MO, as described above, has been in plain sight since his days as a developer in NYC
and NJ in the 80s. He's poison. Nobody in their right minds would deal with him.
The Democratic Congress is trying to do all kinds of things to stop or hinder trump. The
Republican Senate, on the other hand, is the body that has abdicated its responsibilities.
It's important to point out this difference and realize that there is no conservative party
in the US any more.
Yes, any clear minded American patriots should be talking about abuse of power by Trump, not
just obstruction of justice.
His primary method and strategy is to be thuggish and bullish, then lie his way out of the
consequences. The fact that he can continue to behave as he did is because he has yet to
experience the consequences of his actions.
His 90s or 80s percentile of favorable rating among the Republican base is his shield and
the leash that allows him to keep the Republican Congress docile.
As much as this scenario is scary it may be too kind. The thought that really scares me is
that he has the support of Republican base and Congress because Trump is embodiment of their
true nature. Trump is the true color of Republicans. Such is half our country, among our
families, neighbors, work places .
"... Inertia often reigns because no one in this administration ever seems to know what the boss wants; his mind changes from moment to moment and he has the attention span of a toddler in the ball pit at Chuck E. Cheese. ..."
"... A few days ago, Gabriel Sherman of Vanity Fair reported, "The White House's chaotic policymaking process can best be viewed as a series of collisions between Donald Trump's I-alone-can-fix-it campaign boasts and reality. ..."
"... One thing that has been a throughline in the nation's history is that you cannot have democracy or sustain freedom at home if the global context is shaped by militarism, racism and corporate power. ..."
"... the way we've fought the kind of forever wars for the last 15 years, the Iraq war at the center, where you have failed intelligence as the basis for a truly regional catastrophe. It delegitimized the national security establishment as the grownups in the room ..."
"... We're at this extraordinary moment in which the bipartisan foreign policy establishment is discredited. ..."
That's why the president's shambolic foreign policy can be both a curse and a sort of
blessing. On the one hand, his inchoate fumbling and lack of coherent doctrine has us upending
the planet and could at any moment walk us right off a cliff and down into major fresh hell. On
the other, this same haplessness and uncertainty has kept some truly gruesome ideas from being
implemented. Inertia often reigns because no one in this administration ever seems to know
what the boss wants; his mind changes from moment to moment and he has the attention span of a
toddler in the ball pit at Chuck E. Cheese.
A few days ago, Gabriel Sherman of Vanity Fair reported, "The White House's chaotic
policymaking process can best be viewed as a series of collisions between Donald Trump's
I-alone-can-fix-it campaign boasts and reality.
So far, damage from these crashes with the real world has been contained to domestic
issues.
... ... ...
More important, according to polling, foreign policy issues just don't register among voters
right now. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found only 11 percent listing national
security and terrorism as a top government priority -- down from 21 percent four years ago.
Of course, it would only take a major attack on US soil, an event like the Iranian hostage
crisis in 1979 that stretched through the 1980 election campaign, or a sudden American
intervention overseas to snap the public's attention back to reality. But this current
indifference may also reflect a general distrust of various iterations of the national
security/foreign policy establishment that since the end of World War II has made most of the
decisions on these issues -- with some success but often with disastrous outcomes.
Which is why I attended a morning panel a week and a half ago at the City University of New
York titled "The Making of a Progressive Foreign Policy." Moderated by historian Steve Fraser,
it was essentially a conversation between Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The
Nation, and constitutional law professor Aziz Rana, author of The Two Faces of American
Freedom.
"I think the key in this presidential campaign should be a focus on how we prevent war, not
how we wage war," vanden Heuvel said. "There should be new institutions that appear in this
period of ferment that speak to a social democratic, demilitarized, deescalating kind of
foreign policy .... One thing that has been a throughline in the nation's history is that
you cannot have democracy or sustain freedom at home if the global context is shaped by
militarism, racism and corporate power. "
Aziz Rana agreed, and added, "This is a really remarkable moment in the life of the country
but also in terms of thinking about alternatives to the national security establishment when it
comes to foreign policy for a number of reasons that kind of join together. One is the way in
which the way we've fought the kind of forever wars for the last 15 years, the Iraq war at the
center, where you have failed intelligence as the basis for a truly regional catastrophe. It
delegitimized the national security establishment as the grownups in the room."
Yes, vanden Heuvel noted, " We're at this extraordinary moment in which the bipartisan
foreign policy establishment is discredited. But that demands activist movements to drive
forward, to show how discredited they are, because Washington is a glacial institution... But
you know, zombies can keep on moving for long periods of time and I think it's our job to
continue to expose as well as struggle against."
Trump is
sign of degeneration of the US political elite. Much like Pompeo and Bolton.
But his hostility to Iran is just desire to please people who control him and finance his re-election bid .
Notable quotes:
"... ran sees no prospect of negotiations with the United States, a foreign ministry spokesman said on Tuesday ..."
"... Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that there won't be any talks with the U.S. until our government rejoins the JCPOA. ..."
"... I don't see how Iranians could view Trump as anything other than a menace when one of his first acts as president was to declare all of them to be potential security threats with the unnecessary and cruel travel ban. His hostility to and contempt for Iran and its people have been intense and consistent for more than two years. ..."
"... When the president veers between "genocidal tweets" and disingenuous offers to talk, this doesn't come across as the work of a master negotiator but rather the impulsive babbling of a leader who can be easily enraged by the smallest and most inconsequential things that he happens to see on television ..."
"... Trump is not talking to Iran but his lackies in the U.S. MSM. They are seeing Iran as being fanatic and unreasonable in refusing to talk. This will be one of the justifications for war and permanent hostilities. ..."
"... I think you're wrong here. Trump doesn't hate or have contempt for Iranians. He's supremely indifferent to them. The hostility and contempt he has shown Iran and Iranians is meant to keep his major Israel and Saudi Arabia donors happy. That's been true from the beginning. Scores of millions in campaign contributions are riding on it. ..."
"... Increasingly, Donaldius Iohannes Trumpius reminds me of some latter day Roman emperor like Caligula or Nero. Absolute power, depravity, insatiable appetites for everything from power to money and women, a pathological lack of empathy, fawning courtiers – it's all there. ..."
In case there was any doubt, the Iranian government
made clear that they were not interested in talking to Trump:
I ran sees no prospect of negotiations with the United States, a foreign ministry
spokesman said on Tuesday , a day after U.S. President Donald Trump said a deal with
Tehran on its nuclear program was possible.
Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that there won't be any talks with the U.S.
until our government rejoins the JCPOA. That definitely won't happen under the current
administration, so there has never been a realistic chance of starting up U.S.-Iranian
negotiations in the near term. Everyone understands that, and that makes the president's random
"offers" to talk all the more ridiculous. Iran has already been burned by Trump's decision to
renege on the nuclear deal and wage economic war on the entire country, so there would have to
be a major effort on the U.S. side to regain Iranian trust. The Trump administration would have
to reverse course and undo every anti-Iranian thing that it has done over the last two years,
and even then that would barely get the U.S. and Iran back to where they had been in 2017.
Trump wouldn't ever do that because it would require him to admit being completely wrong.
Najmeh Bozorgmehr reports on how Iranians
are adapting to life under U.S. economic warfare against them:
Iranian analysts tell me the US made one big mistake this time. It used almost all its
non-military leverage against Iran over the wrong issue, because the country was not
violating the 2015 nuclear accord. Iranians may despise their rulers but they are aware that
the US is not righteous, either. How can they see Mr Trump as a saviour when he calls Iran "a
nation of terror" and promises "the official end of Iran"?
I don't see how Iranians could view Trump as anything other than a menace when one of
his first acts as president was to declare all of them to be potential security threats with
the unnecessary and cruel travel ban. His hostility to and contempt for Iran and its people
have been intense and consistent for more than two years. The complete lack of respect
that Trump has shown to Iranian leaders and the Iranian people alike stands in sharp contrast
to his fawning praise for the North Korean leader, and they cannot help but take that as an
insult. It also isn't lost on the people being strangled by Trump's sanctions that they are
being punished for abiding by an international agreement backed by the world's major powers
while North Korea is celebrated after successfully defying the rest of the world by building up
their nuclear arsenal and long-range missiles. Iran is being penalized because they trusted the
U.S., and Trump has proven to them that this was a foolish thing for them to do. Why would they
reward Trump's aggression and make the same mistake twice?
When the president veers between "genocidal tweets" and disingenuous offers to talk,
this doesn't come across as the work of a master negotiator but rather the impulsive babbling
of a leader who can be easily enraged by the smallest and most inconsequential things that he
happens to see on television . As the North Koreans have also learned, no one can
successfully negotiate with a person as unreliable and moody as Trump. No one in Iran's
government is going to go out on a limb and take the political risk of engaging with the U.S.
again after the last effort blew up in their faces, and Trump's mercurial instability
guarantees that it would be a waste of everyone's time.
Trump is not talking to Iran but his lackies in the U.S. MSM. They are seeing Iran as
being fanatic and unreasonable in refusing to talk. This will be one of the justifications
for war and permanent hostilities.
Our own acts of aggression are completely ignored.
"His hostility to and contempt for Iran and its people have been intense and consistent
for more than two years. "
I think you're wrong here. Trump doesn't hate or have contempt for Iranians. He's
supremely indifferent to them. The hostility and contempt he has shown Iran and Iranians is
meant to keep his major Israel and Saudi Arabia donors happy. That's been true from the
beginning. Scores of millions in campaign contributions are riding on it.
Increasingly, Donaldius Iohannes Trumpius reminds me of some latter day Roman emperor like
Caligula or Nero. Absolute power, depravity, insatiable appetites for everything from power
to money and women, a pathological lack of empathy, fawning courtiers – it's all
there.
"... "To watch what happened in the White House would make your jaw drop," Schumer said afterwards, "It's clear this was not a spontaneous move on the president's part. It was planned." ..."
U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday cut off
infrastructure talks with congressional Democratic leaders, demanding House Democrats to end
their "phony investigations" before talks resume.
"I've said from the beginning that you probably can't go down two tracks ... You can go down
the investigation track or you can go down the investment track ... We're going to go down one
track at a time," Trump told reporters in the White House Rose Garden after the meeting
abruptly ended.
Earlier on Wednesday, after a closed-door meeting with all House Democrats, Speaker Nancy
Pelosi said House Democrats "believe the President of the United States is engaged in a
cover-up."
"I don't do cover-ups," Trump responded during his remarks.
Trump said he was dismayed to learn that Pelosi had convened a meeting before their meeting
on infrastructure "to talk about the i-word," referring to impeachment.
Regarding the bipartisan initial plan to spend 2 trillion U.S. dollars on infrastructure,
Trump said he told Pelosi and Schumer: "You can't do it under these circumstances. So, get
these phony investigations over with."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that Trump was prepared to quickly end the
meeting.
"To watch what happened in the White House would make your jaw drop," Schumer said
afterwards, "It's clear this was not a spontaneous move on the president's part. It was
planned."
House Democratic leaders are facing increased pressure to begin impeachment proceedings
against Trump, which has further raised partisan tensions in Washington.
"... The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war." ..."
"... From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we -- not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant to be. That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living in or near Washington, D.C. ..."
"... Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever). ..."
"... Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers, including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent counted for nothing. ..."
"... Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall," provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help ..."
"... There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.) ..."
"... In this sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when the USSR existed. ..."
"... I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA) ..."
The Great Power Game is On and China is Winning If America wants to maintain any influence in Asia, it needs to wake
up. By Robert W. Merry •
May 22,
2019
President Donald J. Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People, Thursday,
November 9, 2017, in Beijing, People's Republic of China. (
Official White House Photo
by Shealah Craighead) From across the pond come two geopolitical analyses in two top-quality British publications that lay out
in stark terms the looming struggle between the United States and China. It isn't just a trade war, says The Economist in
a major cover package. "Trade is not the half of it," declares the magazine. "The United States and China are contesting every domain,
from semiconductors to submarines and from blockbuster films to lunar exploration." The days when the two superpowers sought a win-win
world are gone.
For its own cover, The Financial Times ' Philip Stephens produced a piece entitled, "Trade is just an opening shot in a
wider US-China conflict." The subhead: "The current standoff is part of a struggle for global pre-eminence." Writes Stephens: "The
trade narrative is now being subsumed into a much more alarming one. Economics has merged with geopolitics. China, you can hear on
almost every corner in sight of the White House and Congress, is not just a dangerous economic competitor but a looming existential
threat."
Stephens quotes from the so-called National Defense Strategy, entitled "Sharpening the American Military's Competitive Edge,"
released last year by President Donald Trump's Pentagon. In the South China Sea, for example, says the strategic paper, "China has
mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region and provide China a freer hand there."
The broader Chinese goal, warns the Pentagon, is "Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United
States to achieve global pre-eminence in the future."
The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more
intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war."
... ... ..
Russia: Of all the developments percolating in the world today, none is more ominous than the growing prospect of an anti-American
alliance involving Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran. Yet such an alliance is in the works, largely as a result of America's inability
to forge a foreign policy that recognizes the legitimate geopolitical interests of other nations. If the United States is to maintain
its position in Asia, this trend must be reversed.
The key is Russia, largely by dint of its geopolitical position in the Eurasian heartland. If China's global rise is to be thwarted,
it must be prevented from gaining dominance over Eurasia. Only Russia can do that. But Russia has no incentive to act because it
feels threatened by the West. NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been
part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries.
Given the trends that are plainly discernible in the Far East, the West must normalize relations with Russia. That means providing
assurances that NATO expansion is over for good. It means the West recognizing that Georgia, Belarus, and, yes, Ukraine are within
Russia's natural zone of influence. They will never be invited into NATO, and any solution to the Ukraine conundrum will have to
accommodate Russian interests. Further, the West must get over Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It is a fait accompli
-- and one that any other nation, including America, would have executed in similar circumstances.
Would Russian President Vladimir Putin spurn these overtures and maintain a posture of bellicosity toward the West? We can't be
sure, but that certainly wouldn't be in his interest. And how will we ever know when it's never been tried? We now understand that
allegations of Trump's campaign colluding with Russia were meritless, so it's time to determine the true nature and extent of Putin's
strategic aims. That's impossible so long as America maintains its sanctions and general bellicosity.
NATO: Trump was right during the 2016 presidential campaign when he said that NATO was obsolete. He later dialed back on
that, but any neutral observer can see that the circumstances that spawned NATO as an imperative of Western survival no longer exist.
The Soviet Union is gone, and the 1.3 million Russian and client state troops it placed on Western Europe's doorstep are gone as
well.
So what kind of threat could Russia pose to Europe and the West? The European Union's GDP is more than 12 times that of Russia's,
while Russia's per capita GDP is only a fourth of Europe's. The Russian population is 144.5 million to Europe's 512 million. Does
anyone seriously think that Russia poses a serious threat to Europe or that Europe needs the American big brother for survival, as
in the immediate postwar years? Of course not. This is just a ruse for the maintenance of the status quo -- Europe as subservient
to America, the Russian bear as menacing grizzly, America as protective slayer in the event of an attack.
This is all ridiculous. NATO shouldn't be abolished. It should be reconfigured for the realities of today. It should be European-led,
not American-led. It should pay for its own defense entirely, whatever that might be (and Europe's calculation of that will inform
us as to its true assessment of the Russian threat). America should be its primary ally, but not committed to intervene whenever
a tiny European nation feels threatened. NATO's Article 5, committing all alliance nations to the defense of any other when attacked,
should be scrapped in favor of language that calls for U.S. intervention only in the event of a true threat to Western Civilization
itself.
And while a European-led NATO would find it difficult to pull back from its forward eastern positions after adding so many nations
in the post-Cold War era, it should extend assurances to Russia that it has no intention of acting provocatively -- absent, of course,
any Russian provocations.
Pragmatic isolationalism is a better deal then the current neocon foreign policy. Which Trump is pursuing with the zeal similar
to Obama (who continued all Bush II wars and started two new in Libya and Syria.) Probably this partially can be explained by
his dependence of Adelson and pro-Israeli lobby.
But the problem is deeper then Trump: it is the power of MIC and American exeptionalism ( which can be viewed as a form of
far right nationalism ) about which Andrew Bacevich have written a lot:
From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we --
not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant
to be. That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living
in or near Washington, D.C.
If doubts remained on that score, the end of the Cold War removed them. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse
of communism, politicians, journalists, and policy intellectuals threw themselves headlong into a competition over who could
explain best just how unprecedented, how complete, and how wondrous was the global preeminence of the United States.
Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification
for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore
required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever).
"If we have to use force," Secretary of State Albright announced on morning television in February 1998, "it is because
we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."
Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class
hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."
In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping. The 9/11 terrorist
attacks and the several unsuccessful wars of choice that followed offer prime examples. But so too did Washington's belated
and inadequate recognition of the developments that actually endanger the wellbeing of 21st-century Americans, namely climate
change, cyber threats, and the ongoing reallocation of global power prompted by the rise of China. Rather than seeing far into
the future, American elites have struggled to discern what might happen next week. More often than not, they get even that
wrong.
Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global
leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers,
including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent
counted for nothing.
Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful
run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely
approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall,"
provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether
irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help.
There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense
the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider
neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.)
In this sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia
and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when
the USSR existed.
I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat
suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in
China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA)
It has become a cliché to quote William Butler Yeats’s poem “The
Second Coming,” written almost 100 years ago in the aftermath of World War I. But no one has said it better: “Things fall
apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world . . . And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, /
Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?”
Donald Trump's decision to raise duties on Chinese goods from ten to 25 percent of additional $200 billion of China exports
came into force. It is unclear how this will work and how much the US consumers will pay. Probably half of this raise
so from 5% to 10% which might be not very noticeable outside such items as shoes and clothing. The cost of Chinese's shoes already
is quite high -- plastic regular $60-30 with discounts on holiday. Leather -- $100-$50 and almost no discounts.
Trump uses his favorite "bully in the schoolyard" style, a typical the American foreign policy tactic to direct, lawless
pressure. First, they accuse partners of violations, to introduce restrictions on this basis (and at the same time to plunge world
markets into panic), and then to agree on the resumption of negotiations. But the previous decisions about tariffs were left, of
course, in force.
His gambit to conclude a deal with North Korea collapsed in failure in Hanoi in February, and
it is a huge blow to his self-styled image of a master dealmaker. Trump also faces a flurry
of congressional subpoenas at home from Democrats who now control the House of
Representatives. Hence with mounting legal and political troubles, Trump is cornered and
desperately needs a conclusion to the prolonged trade war with China, which has netted zero
benefits for him.
The prospect of a trade deal with China remains as elusive as ever, despite Trump's
increased tariffs to pressure China to come to the negotiating table with the list of
concession that he wants. It is highly unlikely that China will grant Trump the concessions
he wants. China remembers clearly the deal that Tokyo concluded with Washington in the 1990s
that caused Japan to slip into economic stagnation for many years. That period has now been
dubbed Japan's "lost decade."
China is not dumb and it will not concede to Trump.
Worse still, the move to increase tariffs took place while Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He was
in Washington to negotiate with the Trump administration.
It is a blunder by Trump and will be perceived by the Chinese as a cheap shot against
President Xi Jinping. The tariffs hike came despite Xi's
"beautiful letter" to Trump, and it is a massive loss of face for the Chinese leader to
see his group of officials return home from Washington with no deal to conclude the trade
war.
Xi could not afford to look weak in front of his people and he knows that millions of
Chinese netizens access information about the outside world by using virtual private networks
(VPNs) to circumvent the Great Firewall. Many ordinary Chinese know about the trade war's
latest developments and should any deal with Trump infringe on China's core interests, it
will be political suicide for Xi.
One of the main reasons the US-China trade talks broke down was that Washington's demands
were unpalatable to China. Some of the demands from the US, such as an end to government
support for state companies in specific industries and a streamlined approval process for
genetically engineered US crops, are a direct challenge to the Communist Party of China's
control of the economy.
Since Xi took office, he has extended the party's reach into every corner of Chinese
society, and every businessman in China who aspires to reach the top of the hierarchy knows
that they must receive the blessing of the party. It is not surprising that even Jack Ma, who
is one of China's most internationally recognizable figures, has been revealed to be a member
of the CPC after years of denial.
Hence in the face of renewed pressure from Trump, Xi and the Chinese government have
reached the conclusion that it is better to bear the consequences of increased tariffs than
to concede to US demands.
Xi is in for the long haul and can well afford to ride out the storm. And based on Trump's
past negotiations such as his failed bid to pressure House Democrats to fund his wall on the
Mexican border, which led to the longest government shutdown in US history, Xi knows that the
chances are good that Trump will blink first.
Bolton power over Trump is connected to Adelson power over Trump. To think about Bolton as pure advisor is to seriously
underestimate his role and influence.
Notable quotes:
"... But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety. ..."
"... A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U. ..."
"... "Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," ..."
"... Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble. ..."
"... The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas. ..."
"... Tulsi for Sec of State 2020... ..."
"... Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win". ..."
"... You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years. ..."
"... I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. ..."
"... Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter. ..."
"... Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making. ..."
"... I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one. ..."
"... "Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats." ..."
"... So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks ..."
"... If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee? ..."
It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from
sabotaging his foreign policy | Mulshine
"I put that question to another military vet, former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," said Lang of Trump.
But Lang, who later spent more than a decade in the Mideast, noted that Bolton has no direct
control over the military.
"Bolton has a problem," he said. "If he can just get the generals to obey him, he can start
all the wars he wants. But they don't obey him."
They obey the commander-in-chief. And Trump has a history of hiring war-crazed advisors who
end up losing their jobs when they get a bit too bellicose. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
comes to mind."
" In Lang's view, anyone who sees Trump as some sort of ideologue is missing the point.
"He's an entrepreneurial businessman who hires consultants for their advice and then gets
rid of them when he doesn't want that advice," he said.
So far that advice hasn't been very helpful, at least in the case of Bolton. His big mouth
seems to have deep-sixed Trump's chance of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. And
that failed coup in Venezuela has brought up comparisons to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion
during the Kennedy administration." Mulshine
--------------
Well, pilgrims, I worked exclusively on the subject of the Islamic culture continent for the
USG from 1972 to 1994 and then in business from 1994 to 2006. I suppose I am still working on
the subject. pl
I don't get it I suppose. I'd always thought that maybe you wanted highly opinionated Type A
personalities in the role of privy council, etc. You know, people who could forcefully
advocate positions in closed session meetings and weren't afraid of taking contrary
positions. But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't
stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety.
But these days it's the loudmouths who get these jobs, to our detriment. When will senior
govt. leaders understand that just because a person is a success in running for Congress
doesn't mean he/she should be sent forth to mingle with the many different personalities and
cultures running the rest of the world?
A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned
the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U.
No. I would like to see highly opinionated Type B personalities like me hold those jobs. Type
B does not mean you are passive. It means you are not obsessively competitive.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed,"
Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat
primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of
non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the
corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble.
Interesting post, thank you sir. Prior to this recent post I had never heard of Paul
Mulshine. In fact I went through some of his earlier posts on Trump's foreign policy and I
found a fair amount of common sense in them. He strikes me as a paleocon, like Pat Buchanan,
Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Scheuer, Doug Bandow, Tucker Carlson and others in that mold.
The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo,
especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly
at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec
and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for
campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss
of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas.
My best hope is that
Trump teams up with libertarians and maybe even paleocons to run his foreign policy. So far
Trump has not succeeded in draining the Swamp. Bolton, Pompeo and their respective staff
"are" indeed the Swamp creatures and they run their own policies that run against Trump's
America First policy. Any thoughts?
Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full
of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a
successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from
Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was
owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat
there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he
turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the
room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that
was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner
for failing to "win".
You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they
can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump
out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in
pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the
last 50 years.
I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to
walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people
and far too many details. I see he and his trade team not buckling to the Chinese at least not yet despite the intense
pressure from Wall St and the big corporations.
Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative
consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to
his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they
could matter.
Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to
their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart
enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central
to many of our poor strategic decision making.
Just out of curiosity: Did the deal go through in the end, despite Trump's ire? Or was
Trump so furious with the negotiating result of his Japanese partner that he tore up the
draft once it was presented to him?
I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in
using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he
really does not want one.
Mulshine's article has some good points, but he does include some hilariously ignorant bits
which undermine his credibility.
"Jose Gomez Rivera is a Jersey guy who served in the State Department in Venezuela at the
time of the coup that brought the current socialist regime to power."
Wrong. Maduro was elected and international observers seem to agree the election was
fair.
"Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American
public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of
course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats."
So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual
portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at
times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks and
shudders in its death throes underneath them, and at others it seems like they really have no
idea what to do, other than engage in juvenile antics, snort some glue from a paper bag and
set fires in the dumpsters behind the Taco Bell before going out into a darkened field
somewhere to violate farm animals.
If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to
find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee?
maybe Trump finally has his hands untied to start doing the things he promised
I really hope so .
But I fear he is an unfocused egomaniac, without overarching philosophy or principles,
blown by the winds and susceptible to any path that seems interesting to him at the present
time or that massages his ego.
In this case he looks like Bill Clinton impersonalization ;-) That's probably how Adelson controls Bolton ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions. ..."
@FB Yeah brother,
that POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby Bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million
dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He
was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
The chaos all around us is what happens when the nation elects an incompetent, narcissistic,
impulsive and amoral man as president. This Christmas, heaven help us all.
Much of the government is shut down over symbolic funding for an
insignificant portion
of a useless border wall that President Trump said Mexico would pay for. The financial markets are having a nervous breakdown
that Trump and his aides are making worse.
... ... ...
It has become a cliche to quote William Butler Yeats's poem "
The
Second Coming
," written almost 100 years ago in the aftermath of World War I. But no one has said it better:
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world . . . And what rough beast, its
hour come round at last, / Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
... ... ...
It is difficult, at the moment, to fully assess the damage Trump is wreaking. We have never had a president like him, so history
is a poor guide...
' doesn't this prove I was wrong about Trump and his movement all along?
I was very wrong to discount the role of character, personality, and intelligence: Trump
is simply not fit to be President '
Raimondo's reaction to Dump's incredible imbecility re the Syria 'chemical attacks
'
' A child could see through the fake "chemical attack" supposedly launched by Bashar
al-Assad just as his troops defeated the jihadists and Trump said he wanted out of Syria
'
Yes anyone watching that white helmets footage is immediately cringing for those poor kids
being abused as props in a macabre stage play
So he's not just stupid, and crazy – he's also a coward. He refuses
to confront the War Party head on, despite his campaign trail rhetoric. Just the other day he
was telling crowds in Ohio how we were on the way out of Syria because "we have to take care
of our own country." The crowd cheered. Would he go back to that same audience and tell them
we need to intervene in a country that's been wracked by warfare for years, with no real hope
of a peaceful settlement? Of course not.
Coulter:
He is a shallow, lazy ignoramus who just wants Goldman Sachs to like him.
We get words; the neocon banker NY scum, running and ruining this world on the fast track
since 9-11, get action. They also own the congressional swamp with its amazingly high
approval rating of 15%. They own the former liberal left, now the Resistance, that can turn
out half a million bleeding hearts in pussy hats but the same oddly can't be bothered to
protest war.
Although I believe the timing of the raid on Trump's lawyer's office to be convenient to
help persuade him to ignore his base and appease his owners, at this point I won't be
troubled when they throw him away.
FP: Is there any way you can predict what Trump will do, say, or tweet?
GA: I will tell you the advice I gave [to Paris] about the tweets. He once criticized the
French president [Emmanuel Macron], and people called me from Paris to say, "What should we
do?" My answer was clear: "Nothing." Do nothing because he will always outbid you. Because he
can't accept appearing to lose. You have restraint on your side, and he has no restraint on his
side, so you lose. It is escalation dominance.
FP: As ambassador, you bridged two very different presidents, Obama and Trump. Talk about
what that was like.
GA: On one side, you had this ultimate bureaucrat, an introvert, basically a bit aloof, a
restrained president. A bit arrogant also but basically somebody who every night was going to
bed with 60-page briefings and the next day they were sent back annotated by the president. And
suddenly you have this president who is an extrovert, really a big mouth, who reads basically
nothing or nearly nothing, with the interagency process totally broken and decisions taken from
the hip basically. And also, for an ambassador, you had a normal working administration with
Obama. People in the executive branch offices were able to explain to you what the president
was thinking or what the president was going to do. And suddenly it's the opposite. A lot of
offices are still empty. It's amazing -- after 55 months, a lot of people are changing
overnight.
It's the fourth G-7 [emissary] we've had in the White house in two years! So the first
problem is we have nobody in the offices or if they are there, they're going to leave. But on
top of that, even if you have somebody in the offices, they don't know what the president is
going to say. And if the president has said something, they don't know what he means.
"... This is a humiliation for the US in that it demonstrates the waning power and influence of the US in the region and most especially of Donald Trump who has demonstrated his indifference to the interests of the Arabs in repeated slavish support of Israel against the Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians. pl ..."
It surprises me that Egypt has rather brazenly walked away from the Boltonesque fantasy of
an "Arab NATO." I would have thought that the paychecks Egypt receives every year from the
American taxpayer and the Saudis would have kept Sisi in line, but apparently the prospect of
other sources of funding affected the decision to defy the Amiirkaan.
With the exception of Jordan's small but competent armed forces, Egypt is the only country
among the members that possesses significant military power, The armed forces of the other
countries are mere playthings for princes. Egypt's withdrawal from this alliance makes the
farcical nature of the plan quite clear.
This is a humiliation for the US in that it
demonstrates the waning power and influence of the US in the region and most especially of
Donald Trump who has demonstrated his indifference to the interests of the Arabs in repeated
slavish support of Israel against the Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians. pl
"... Trump's lack of knowledge and dismal understanding of major issues have always been some of his biggest weaknesses, but the problem here is even worse than that. The president is not merely ignorant and unfamiliar with the relevant issues. We have known that all along. According to this report, he is determined to remain ignorant and fixed in his mistaken views about a wide range of issues, and the officials serving under him are enabling this so that they don't make him angry at them. The point isn't that intelligence agencies get everything right (they don't), but on the issues where the president has publicly differed from their assessments he is consistently getting things wrong because that makes it easier for him to pretend that his policies are succeeding when everyone else can see that they aren't. ..."
"... There is nothing wrong with informed skepticism of official claims. It would be unhealthy and dangerous to accept official claims without testing them and putting them under scrutiny. Unfortunately, that isn't what Trump is doing. He is reflexively rejecting all evidence that undermines his own official claims about the nuclear deal, North Korea, and many other things, and he is doing that because the evidence proves his claims to be false. ..."
Timereports
on Trump's unwillingness or inability to consider evidence that contradicts what he thinks he knows about foreign policy issues:
What is most troubling, say these officials and others in government and on Capitol Hill who have been briefed on the episodes,
are Trump's angry reactions when he is given information that contradicts positions he has taken or beliefs he holds. Two intelligence
officers even reported that they have been warned to avoid giving the President intelligence assessments that contradict stances
he has taken in public.
Trump's lack of knowledge and dismal understanding of major issues have always been some of his biggest weaknesses, but the
problem here is even worse than that. The president is not merely ignorant and unfamiliar with the relevant issues. We have known
that all along. According to this report, he is determined to remain ignorant and fixed in his mistaken views about a wide range
of issues, and the officials serving under him are enabling this so that they don't make him angry at them. The point isn't that
intelligence agencies get everything right (they don't), but on the issues where the president has publicly differed from their assessments
he is consistently getting things wrong because that makes it easier for him to pretend that his policies are succeeding when everyone
else can see that they aren't.
That invincible ignorance has serious consequences for U.S. policies and interests and for our relations with other states. One
of those consequences was the decision to renege on the nuclear deal with Iran because the president wrongly believed that they aren't
complying with the deal when all evidence shows that they have been complying from the beginning. Trump declared the deal to be "horrible,"
and so he refuses to consider the proof that shows his opposition to be baseless. At the same time, he imagines that there has been
great progress with North Korean disarmament because it flatters him to think that this is true.
There is nothing wrong with informed skepticism of official claims. It would be unhealthy and dangerous to accept official claims
without testing them and putting them under scrutiny. Unfortunately, that isn't what Trump is doing. He is reflexively rejecting
all evidence that undermines his own official claims about the nuclear deal, North Korea, and many other things, and he is doing
that because the evidence proves his claims to be false.
This is not even a question of whether one happens to agree or disagree with the president's policies. The president simply makes
things up or repeats the lies that others have told him, and he then uses this garbage information to defend policies that make no
sense. That makes it practically impossible for the president to learn or change course when a policy is failing, because he is apparently
unable or unwilling to accept new information that doesn't bolster his preconceived notions of how clever and effective his decisions
have been. An unwillingness to listen to dissenting views and a refusal to consider contradictory evidence are among the greatest
flaws of our worst presidents, and they presage many more terrible decisions in the next two years.
He essentially became a Republican Obama, save Nobel Peace Price. If Obama was/is a CIA-democrat, this guy is a
Deep State controlled republican. In any case he betrayed his voters in a way that resembles Obama betrayal. One has a
fake slogan "change we can believe in" that other equally fake "Make [middle] America Great Again" (which means restoration
of well-being of middle class and working class in my book, not the continuation of Obama foreign wars, and tax cuts for for
corporations and super rich.
And that means that he lost a considerable part of his electorate: the anti-war republicans
and former Sanders supporters. He might do good and not to try to run in 2020. He definitely is no economic nationalist.
Compare his policies with Tucker Carlson Jan 2, 2019
speech to see the difference. He is
"national neoliberal" which rejects parts of neoliberal globalization based on treaties and
prefer to bully nations to compliance that favor the US interests instead of treaties.
And his "fight" with the Deep State resemble so closely to complete and unconditional
surrender, that you might have difficulties to distinguish between the two.
Most of his appointees would make Hillary proud. That that extends beyond rabid neocons like Haley, Mattis, Bolton and
Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post is without a doubt the most pro-establishment among all large mainstream publications, not only do they defend the narratives of the Deep State but actively attacks anyone who challenges them. ..."
"... Jeff Bezos owner of the Washington Post is also a contractor with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon advisory board all part of doing everything he can to cozy up and ingratiate himself to the establishment on which his empire is built. ..."
"... It's really sad that people in the public believe this stuff. It's insane and ridiculous. We're living in an Insane Asylum and the ones who should be there for the safety of themselves and others are walking around giving orders to Media and USG, fomenting war and making a mockery of laws and "normal behaviors. ..."
"... They flooded the news with the old Helsinki/Putin stuff to hide the real news. Lisa Page's testimony revealed that John Carlin, Mueller's former chief of staff was running the Russia investigation from the DOJ end, showing another conflict of Mueller's. Now Mueller is covering for two best friends, Comey and Carlin and he has to frame Trump to save them. ..."
"... The testimony also showed FBI David Bowditch was heavily involved, and Bowditch is now 2nd in command at the FBI and blocking the public release of witness testimony, and one reason for it is it reveals his involvement. ..."
"... It is also now revealed that John Brennan CIA had the dossier before the FBI, and the dossier was likely written by Nellie Ohr, who belonged to a CIA group, and then the dossier was laundered by Steele to look like foreign intelligence to get the Crossfire Hurricane investigation started on Trump. You would think it would be big news that Russians may have had nothing to do with the dossier but the media doesn't see it that way ..."
Washington
Post stating that he "has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details" of his
discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin - telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in a
phone interview that he would be willing to release the details of a private conversation in
Helsinki last summer.
"I would. I don't care," Trump told Pirro, adding: "I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I
couldn't care less."
"I mean, it's so ridiculous, these people making up," Trump said of the WaPo report.
The president referred to his roughly two-hour dialogue with Putin in Helsinki -- at which
only the leaders and their translators were present -- as "a great conversation" that
included discussions about "securing Israel and lots of other things."
"I had a conversation like every president does," Trump said Saturday. "You sit with the
president of various countries. I do it with all countries." -
Politico
In July an attempt by House Democrats to subpoena Trump's Helsinki interpreter was quashed
by Republicans.
"The Washington Post is almost as bad, or probably as bad, as the New York Times," Trump
said.
When Pirro asked Trump about a Friday night New York Times report that the FBI had opened an
inquiry into whether he was working for Putin, Pirro asked Trump "Are you now or have you ever
worked for Russia, Mr. President?"
"I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked," Trump responded. "I think it's
the most insulting article I've ever had written."
Trump went on an
epic tweetstorm Saturday following the Times article, defending his 2017 firing of former
FBI Director James Comey, and tweeting that he has been "FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush
or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, & as I have often
said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday
we will have good relations with Russia again!"
rumcho
Jeff Bezos paid $250 million for Washington Post, five years later he gets a government contract with the CIA for $600
million. Are you connecting the dots? You do the numbers. This is how fascism works. Bezos is a crony capitalist joker.
is Trump waiting for Mueller to lay down his cards? Head him off at the pass and arrest Obama, Rice, Jarrett, Lynch, Comey,
Rosenstein and McCabe all on day 1
best defense is a good offense. Make the narrative about Dem sedition not impending House impeachment hearings.
You are President, start acting like it. Make them fear you.
your re-election depends on Mike Obama not being your opponent.
Let it Go
WaPo, again?
The Washington Post is without a doubt the most pro-establishment among all large mainstream publications, not only do
they defend the narratives of the Deep State but actively attacks anyone who challenges them.
Jeff Bezos owner of the Washington Post is also a contractor with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon advisory board all
part of doing everything he can to cozy up and ingratiate himself to the establishment on which his empire is built. The
article below delves into how WaPo is behind many of the big stories that manipulate America and moves the needle of public
opinion in huge ways.
It's really sad that people in the public believe this stuff. It's insane and ridiculous. We're living in an Insane Asylum
and the ones who should be there for the safety of themselves and others are walking around giving orders to Media and USG,
fomenting war and making a mockery of laws and "normal behaviors.
shadow54
They flooded the news with the old Helsinki/Putin stuff to hide the real news. Lisa Page's testimony revealed that
John Carlin, Mueller's former chief of staff was running the Russia investigation from the DOJ end, showing another conflict
of Mueller's. Now Mueller is covering for two best friends, Comey and Carlin and he has to frame Trump to save them.
The testimony also showed FBI David Bowditch was heavily involved, and Bowditch is now 2nd in command at the FBI and
blocking the public release of witness testimony, and one reason for it is it reveals his involvement.
It is also now revealed that John Brennan CIA had the dossier before the FBI, and the dossier was likely written by
Nellie Ohr, who belonged to a CIA group, and then the dossier was laundered by Steele to look like foreign intelligence to
get the Crossfire Hurricane investigation started on Trump. You would think it would be big news that Russians may have had
nothing to do with the dossier but the media doesn't see it that way.
Then there is the news that Fusion GPS worked with the Democracy Integrity Project and Knew Knowledge to run a fake Russian
bots campaign against Roy Moore. The Democracy Integrity Project was started by Feinstein's aide and with New Knowledge wrote
a report on Russian bots for the Senate Intelligence Committee. So the Senate Intelligence Committee hired creators of fake
Russian bots to write a report on Russian bots.
In my view, at the moment the deed is done. The president signed onto the report acknowledged
the he accepts the report has even gone as far to say, he blames Pres. Putin
Another backtrack, just muddies the waters, and mat be acceptable because no one wants to
accept the real consequences of a president who has repudiated the one state president he
most desired to make a deal with -- the jig is up.
Whether kabuki theater or real gamesmanship --
A threshold has been crossed and uncrossing it is going to be tricky and in my further
humiliation for the wh. The analysis here mattered before the president agreed with the
report. But when he did, this analysis, becomes moot. Having a chit chat about de-escalating
nuclear tensions is quaint in light of the president acknowledging that russia has in fact
undermined the US democratic process. This is a serious charge and no amount of changing the
subject, crying foul, or pretending it was all a big misunderstanding is going to change
that.
I think it would have been prudent for the president to hold fire in Helsinki and read the
report and then responded . He did make any of those choices. It matters not how exposed the
establishment in wanton eagerness to have their way, wh has embraced the matter. it is on
record and . . . oh well. I see merit in maintaining his original position of disbelief --
however, the president did a complete about face -- and there is no question of that or the
implications.
Some of neocon/neoliberal critiqur below are valid. But what if Trump policy from the very beginning was based on the idea to
declare national emergency and then use those powers to appropriate the funds? Bush declared fake war of terror with
much success before. Now it might be Trump turn
Notable quotes:
"... "Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals." ..."
"... Donald Trump, "The Art of the Deal" ..."
"... Left reeling and desperate, he said on Friday and again on Sunday that he may declare a national emergency on the southern border so he can simply appropriate the taxpayer funds he wants. Such a move may not even be legal , would prompt Democrats to file a lawsuit to stop him regardless, and is likely to further alienate some Republicans worn down by his antics. ..."
"Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making
deals, preferably big deals."
--
Donald Trump, "The Art of the Deal"
***************
President Trump's supporters elected him, in part, because they saw him as a wily tycoon and deft dealmaker who
could shake up Washington and bring decades of business know-how to the Oval Office.
He was always ready to tap into those beliefs. "We need a PRESIDENT with strength, stamina, heart and
incredible deal making skill if our country is ever going to be able to prosper again!" he
tweeted
a few months after launching his presidential bid in 2015.
Trump, in reality, was never a peerless or even a particularly skillful dealmaker, and many of the most
significant business transactions he engineered
imploded
. Instead, he made his way in the world as an indefatigable self-promoter, a marketing confection and
a human billboard who frequently licensed his name to buildings and products paid for by others.
In Trump's professional life, his
inept dealmaking
often came home to roost in
unmanageable debts
and
serial bankruptcies
. In his more recent political and presidential life it has
revealed itself
through
bungled, hapless efforts
to overturn the Affordable Care Act; forge a nuclear agreement with North Korea; wage
trade wars with China, Mexico and Canada; retain control of the House of Representatives; turn military and
diplomatic strategy on its head; lay siege to sensible immigration policy; and, now,
force a government shutdown
to secure funding for a prized project -- a wall along the U.S.'s southern border.
Striking lasting deals requires intimacy with the finer points of what every party wants out of a negotiation,
realistic goals, maturity, patience, flexibility -- and enough leverage so the other side can't simply stall or
walk away from the table. Trump hasn't met any of those prerequisites in his repeated efforts to fulfill his
campaign promise to build a wall, a promise that played to the most xenophobic and bigoted portion of his base
while
not addressing
any of the
real shortcomings
or
necessary enhancements
of
federal
immigration policy
.
"Policy" and "Trump" don't really coexist, of course. The president lacks the interest or sophistication to
steep himself in policy details, so he enters the immigration debate and dealmaking for his wall at a distinct
disadvantage. For as much as he disparages politicians and public service, Trump is surrounded by Democrats and
Republicans who have immersed themselves in immigration discussions for years. Expertise does matter, after all --
and Trump doesn't have it.
The most visible reminder of the raw amateurism that has undermined Trump's dealmaking came in December during
a memorable White House visit with a pair of Democrats, Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer.
As the trio gradually became unsettled over policy differences that could lead to a government shutdown, Trump,
ready to perform for the media he had invited to observe the chat, sallied forth in a burst of bravado.
"I am proud to shut down the government for border security," Trump
told
Schumer. "I will take the mantle. I will shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it."
Unforced error.
Trump -- undoubtedly content to prove he's willing to burn things down to get his own way -- needlessly
publicized himself as the author of the shutdown that ultimately arrived. Hmmm. Let's think about that. Doesn't
every politician in Washington with a sense of the town's history know that voters grow weary of government
shutdowns and tend not to like those responsible for them? Newt Gingrich, whom Trump has occasionally solicited
for input, surely knows this. Back in
1995
and 1996, when Gingrich was speaker of the House, then-President Bill Clinton maneuvered to hang a
government shutdown around the speaker's neck -- inflicting permanent political damage on the once-ascendant
Gingrich.
A word to the wise: If you get saddled with a reputation as a guy who likes to blow up things it can be hard to
orchestrate deals. ("President Trump is a terrible negotiator," Schumer recently
said
, highlighting how much leverage the president has lost in the wall negotiations.)
Trump also missed chances last year, when Republicans still controlled the House, to
seal deals
that might have given him significantly more funding for a wall than the $5 billion he wants -- and
is unlikely to get -- now. Early in the year, hampered by his inability to be flexible or understand the other
side's needs, Trump opposed a bipartisan Senate proposal that offered $25 billion for a wall as long as a path to
citizenship was opened for 1.7 million young, undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.
Just before Christmas, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell got Republicans behind a short-term funding
package to keep the government open until February. That proposal didn't include money for a wall, and Trump was
prepared to support it until backlash from conservative media pundits Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Laura
Ingraham
convinced him to retreat
. Lacking clear goals for a deal -- did he want to keep the government open or did he
want to dig in behind a wall? -- Trump left his own party befuddled and empowered Democrats.
In recent days, Schumer and Pelosi have said they're unwilling to give Trump more than $1.3 billion to build a
border fence (not a wall) and that they won't commit taxpayer funds to Trump's wall. The president responded that
he then would be willing to leave the government unfunded and shuttered indefinitely -- a posture he is unlikely to
be able to maintain and a negotiating strategy for which few in his White House or his party had been prepared.
Good dealmakers prepare their teams so they can get the support they need to move a negotiation across the
finish line. But Trump has apparently overlooked the fact that his administration's signature accomplishments --
landing
two conservative
justices
on the Supreme Court, pushing through a
major tax overhaul
, and passing
criminal justice reform
-- had been initiated and guided by Republican dealmakers more able than him.
Building a wall, on the other hand, has been Trump's personal piece of performance art and he has invoked
fantasies to promote it (like, for example, compelling Mexico to foot the bill). He has also become so emotionally
attached to the effort that he's put himself at a strategic disadvantage. The president is now so consumed with
appearing to win, that he may not win at all.
Left reeling and desperate, he said on Friday and again on Sunday that he may declare a national emergency
on the southern border so he can simply appropriate the taxpayer funds he wants. Such a move
may not even be legal
, would prompt Democrats to file a lawsuit to stop him regardless, and is likely to
further alienate some Republicans worn down by his antics.
This, however,
is who the president is
. He's focused on fostering his own, carnivalesque image, and he has little real
interest in policy outcomes. And he's been here before. In 1988, he overpaid in a deal for the
Plaza Hotel
because he was irrationally enamored of the property. A few years later he lost it in bankruptcy.
Around the same time, he bungled negotiations for another project that would have made him a
transformative figure
in New York real estate because he couldn't exercise the restraint, foresight and
financial discipline needed to get the deal done. In 1996, he passed on selling a stake in one of his casinos that
would have netted him about $180 million and helped prop up his struggling
Atlantic City
operation
because he didn't want his name removed from the property.
None of those episodes humbled him.
"We need a dealmaker in the White House, who knows how to think innovatively and make smart deals," he
tweeted
back in 2011.
For the time being, Trump's lack of impulse control and self-discipline may frustrate his
strongman tendencies at home, but that's cold comfort, given the damage he can do with U.S.
military might. In "the most powerful office in the world,"
impulsive, ignorant incompetence can be just as dangerous as sinister purpose -- but it
represents a different set of threats than the ones that most concern Frum.
"Trumpocracy has left Americans less safe against foreign dangers," Frum charges, by which
he seems to mean mainly Russian cybermeddling. He spends an order of magnitude more time on
that subject than on the foreign dangers Trump has gratuitously stoked with brinksmanship on
North Korea.
In the near term, what's to be most feared is the president lumbering into a major conflict
with either (or both?) of the two remaining "Axis
of Evil" members. Uncertain plans for a North Korean summit aside, that risk may be
increasing. As the New York Times 's Maggie Haberman recently explained , Trump "was
terrified of the job the first six months, and now feels like he has a command of it" -- a
terrifying thought in itself. Newly emboldened, the president wants unrepentant uber-hawks John
Bolton and Mike Pompeo for national security advisor and secretary of state, respectively. "Let
Trump be Trump" looks a lot like letting Trump be Bush-era Frum .
In fairness, Frum does seem queasy about all this, but he's
awkwardly positioned to sound the alarm. The author who declared that it's
"victory or holocaust" in the war on terror and lauded George W. Bush as The Right
Man may not be the right man to guide us through the particular dangers of this moment
in history.
We may yet avoid a disaster on the scale of the Iraq war, aided by what Frum terms "the
surge in civic spirit that has moved Americans since the ominous night of November 8, 2016" --
or God's special affection for fools, drunks, and the United States of America. Perhaps, in
hindsight, the Trump years will look more like a Great Beclowning than a Long National
Nightmare. If so, we may look back on this period and say, as "43" apparently did of Trump's
First Inaugural: "that was
some weird shit " -- and give thanks that Trump wasn't as competent as Bush.
"... Just as we can sincerely thank President Obama for pushing Russia and China into each other's arms ..."
"... But the good stupid does not stop there. The fact that the US elites are all involved in a giant shootout against each other by means of investigations, scandals, accusations, talk of impeachment, etc. is also a blessing because while they are busy fighting each other they are much less capable of focusing on their real opponents and enemies. For months now President Trump has mostly ruled the US by means of "tweets" which, of course, and by definition, amount to exactly nothing and there is nothing which could be seriously called a "US foreign policy" (with the exception of the never-ending stream of accusations, threats and grandstanding, which don't qualify). There are real risks and opportunities resulting from this situation ..."
"... Like Putin said in the Oliver Stone interview, when it comes to foreign policy, it doesn't matter that much who is in the White House, because there is a continuity to US foreign policy. Looks like he was right. At least ISIS has been destroyed and the war in Syria is mostly over. ..."
"... We should be careful what we wish for. I agree in principle that anything that weakens the empire is a good thing. But I fear it will die a very slow and painful death, and it will probably in the end take a lot of us with it. When it is over we may ruled by something much worse than stupid. ..."
"... If you really mean this and not in an ironic sense, then dittos a million times over. He loves the country, and the leftists who hate the USA are in a state of pandemonia after having erroneously assumed that they had the power locked up forever. ..."
"... In one year Trump has been "hillarized" by the neocons and the various lobbies that he claimed he wanted to neutralize during his campaign. He has kicked out the pacifists and the populists like Bannon and he is about to kick out Tillerson, another pacifist, to fully embrace the neocons, the riches and the Jewish lobbies. As such he is no different than Hillary. ..."
"... I have to agree with the basic premise of the article, with the caveat that its an incredibly risky game. Trump's cowardice and weakness has the entire world on the edge of nuclear catastrophe. Internal civil war or chaos would be devastating, but it just might save the world from that which is worse, nuclear devastation. ..."
"... Trump has a rifle target painted on his back. Some of what he has done, I am convinced, is out of simple self-preservation. ..."
"... The woman is a psychopath and whatever one would think of Trump, the whole world should be grateful to Trump that this woman failed her bid for the presidency for otherwise the world would be a far more dangerous place. ..."
"... Yep Trump is easily manipulated, stupid and failed on many aspects. (4d chess ya sure lol). But this allows the world to wake up to what the US is about (especially the Zionist issue). American establishment and media are bickering over useless things (gets them busy). Though I imagine the CIA can still do as it wants. If a war can be avoided that would be the best. This constant Neocon-Zionist and threats to Iran/NK/proxy war in Syria/ is madness. ..."
Stupid can mean many different things. For example, it can mean stupid threats against North Korea. That is a very frightening
kind of stupid. But there is also a very good kind of stupid. For example, I think that the decision to recognize Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel is a wonderful kind of stupid which I warmly welcome.
Why?
Because it is the kind of stupid which tremendously weakens the AngloZionist Empire!
Think of the damage this truly stupid move did not only to the international reputation of the US (which indeed was already pretty
close to zero even before this latest move) but also to the US capability to get anything done at all in the Middle East. The military
defeat of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and the political defeat of the US in Syria just needed a little something extra to truly
make the US irrelevant in the Middle East and, thanks to Donald Trump, this has now happened! Furthermore, there was a dirty little
secret which everybody new about but which has now become a public fact:
US= ISRAEL & ISRAEL=US
Again this is all very good. Even better is the fact that the only ones disagreeing with this would be Honduras, Guatemala, Palau,
Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Togo, Nauru, southern Sudan and, of course, Israel.
The US foreign policy has become so outlandishly stupid that even the most subservient US puppet regimes (say, the UK, Norway,
ROK or Japan) or are now forced to condemn it, at least publicly. A lot of credit here goes to Nikki Haley who, following this catastrophic
vote, decided to make things even worse by
blackmailing the UN and all
its member states . Finally, President Trump himself sealed it all
by giving Nikki Haley's
speech a very public endorsement .
So stupid as this may have been, and stupid it really was, in this instance the results of this stupid decision were nothing short
of a blessing for the Middle East: even Hamas is now finally talking again with Hezbollah and Iran!
Just as we can sincerely thank President Obama for pushing Russia and China into each other's arms, we can now all thank
Nikki Haley and Trump for uniting the resistance to the state of Israel and the entire AngloZionist Empire. I can just about imagine
the jubilation in Tehran when the Iranians heard the good news!
But the good stupid does not stop there. The fact that the US elites are all involved in a giant shootout against each other
by means of investigations, scandals, accusations, talk of impeachment, etc. is also a blessing because while they are busy fighting
each other they are much less capable of focusing on their real opponents and enemies. For months now President Trump has mostly
ruled the US by means of "tweets" which, of course, and by definition, amount to exactly nothing and there is nothing which could
be seriously called a "US foreign policy" (with the exception of the never-ending stream of accusations, threats and grandstanding,
which don't qualify). There are real risks and opportunities resulting from this situation
Risks: when nobody is really in charge, each agency does pretty much what it wants. We saw that during the 2 nd half of
the Obama Presidency when State did one thing, the Pentagon another, and the CIA yet another. This resulted in outright goofy situation
with US allies attacking each other in Syria and Iraq because they all reported to different agencies. The risk here is obvious:
for example, when US diplomats made an agreement with Russia in Syria, the Pentagon torpedoed it the very next day by attacking Syrian
forces.
The recent attacks on the Russian Aerospace Forces base in Khmeimim (and the latest drone attack on that same base) would exactly
fit that pattern. The Russians have been complaining for months now that the US are "non-agreement capable" and this can clearly
be a problem and a risk. Opportunities: when nobody is in charge then the AngloZionist Empire cannot really bring its full force
against one specific target. Think of a car or bus in which all the passengers are fighting each other for the control of the steering
wheel. This is bad for them, but good for everybody else as the only place this car or bus is headed for is the ditch. Furthermore,
since currently the US is, at various degrees, threatening no less than 9 countries (Afghanistan, Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea,
Venezuela, Turkey, Pakistan, China) these threats sound rather hollow. Not only that, but should the US get seriously involved in
any type of conflict with any one of these countries, this would open great opportunities for the others to take action. Considering
how the US elites are busy fighting each other there and threatening everybody else there is very little change that the US could
focus enough to seriously threaten any of its opponents. But this goes much further than the countries I mentioned here. There is
a French expression which goes "when the cat's away, the mice will play" and this is what we might see next: more countries following
the example of the Philippines, which used to be a subservient US colony and which now is ruled by a man who has no problems publicly
insulting the US President, at least when Obama was President (Duterte seems to like Trump more than Obama). There have already been
signs that the South Koreans are taking their first
timid steps towards telling "no" to Uncle Sam .
I agree with the commentary's evaluation of the Trump regime. Either his own weakness or the fact he was coopted by the power
structure or gave in to it as a result of phony Russian conspiracy theories or uncontrollable investigations resulted in his neutralization.
I also agree with the commentary's view that the struggle for control is neutralizing the yankee imperium somewhat, and I fully
concur with the Saker's view that the harpy would have been a far greater, more immediate danger. As for the question of whether
the harpy would have been worse, all one has to do is remember that she was proposing a no-fly zone to protect the jihadi thugs
the yankee imperium was sponsoring in Syria from the Russians. That is the evidence for the likelihood that the harpy's triumph
could have led to a fatal war.
It's because she strongly favored a no-fly zone in Syria, and many felt that could have precipitated a clash with Russia. H.
Clinton was also a consistent and unrepentant warmonger (Serbia, Iraq, Libya), while Trump had spoken against the Iraq war and
in favor of repairing relations with Russia.
Like Putin said in the Oliver Stone interview, when it comes to foreign policy, it doesn't matter that much who is in the
White House, because there is a continuity to US foreign policy. Looks like he was right. At least ISIS has been destroyed and
the war in Syria is mostly over.
Trump's domestic policy, however, is an entirely different affair. The economy has picked up in a big way. And Trump has launched
a counter-attack in the culture wars. He is against late-term abortion, against global warming alarmism, against demented transgenderism,
against cheap race- and gender-baiting, against promoting violence by spreading BLM lies, and generally in favor of sanity. On
the cultural front, Trump's arrival is a breath of fresh air after eight stifling years of Obama.
I have this painful sense of a most important and totally missed opportunity: to finally restore the sovereignty of the
US to the people of the US and to return to a civilized and rational international policy.
To return to a "civilized and rational international policy" would require a return to an era prior to 1845 and the War with
Mexico. Since then the US, with pauses to regroup, has had little that was rational and nothing that was civilized in foreign
policy.
The same grasping Yankee mindset and cupidity that finally provoked the Civil War frames the 'stupidity' that has become honed
into the actions of Americans today that The Saker rails about. We are certainly the product of our history and credit The Donald
for announcing it daily. He is us. http://www.robertmagill.wordpress.com
I think Hilary would have had a crippled Presidency coming out of the starting blocks and been very ineffective. It would have
been her against a Republican dominated Congress that hates her. She would be up to her eyeballs in investigations. No way she
would have had the authority to start a war. The real question – for a novelist or a psychologist – is why she thought she should
be President in the first place. I think the Democrats dodged a bullet when Trump won, and long term Trump winning is probably
the best outcome liberals could have hoped for.
Trump has launched a counter-attack in the culture wars. He is against late-term abortion, against global warming alarmism,
against demented transgenderism, against cheap race- and gender-baiting, against promoting violence by spreading BLM lies, and
generally in favor of sanity
Refreshing, but doomed to fail the same why Emperor Julian failed to restore the Old Roman religion against the onslaughts
of Christianity. Trump is out of step with the Zeitgeist and supported mostly by the old and laughed at by the young. Every year
the enemy gets stronger, just from attrition amongst the sane.
If we can agree that anything that weakens the AngloZionist Empire is a good thing (including for the American people!),
as is anything which brings its eventual demise closer, then there is a lot to be grateful for the past year.
We should be careful what we wish for. I agree in principle that anything that weakens the empire is a good thing. But
I fear it will die a very slow and painful death, and it will probably in the end take a lot of us with it. When it is over we
may ruled by something much worse than stupid.
There is a theory floated by a number of intelligent and informed observers that Trump's seeming foreign policy bumbling is in
fact his cunning way of getting his policy preferences enacted, against the obstacles put up by the US's foreign policy establishment.
Here it is put forward by Patrick Armstrong, who occasionally posts here, I think, and at SST:
Trump's bumbling Jerusalem announcement was a clever way to get out of UN dues and other international aid payments, and also
a big step towards discrediting the US as a mediator in the Arab/Israeli dispute, so Trump can be "forced" to walk away from those
commitments;
Trump alienating European allies over the Iran agreement, the Jerusalem agreement etc is a cunning ploy to get the US out of
its NATO entanglement;
Trump's clumsy criticism of Pakistan was an attempt to provoke them into making it impossible for the US presence in Afghanistan
to be maintained, so Trump can be "forced" to withdraw from that stupid, endless commitment.
Picking a fight with North Korea could be a way to get South Korea to finally boot out the US presence there and stand on its
own feet again, saving the US a fortune;
Etc (these are by no means all suggestions from Armstrong's particular enunciation of the case).
I've every respect for Armstrong as an informed and intelligent observer of world events, as well as for others I've seen raising
this line of argument, and I certainly can see the point he and others are floating here, but I'm not buying it yet myself. It
just seems to me that all these bumblings are more straightforwardly explained by simple foreign policy incompetence, employing
buffoons like Haley, and following bad advice, on Trump's part.
I've always been a Trump supporter and I've never bought the line that he's stupid, but I do think he is ignorant of the issues
involved in foreign policy, and hostage to some very, very dubious advisers (especially on Israel-related issues and on Iran).
Whether that would prove to be a problem was always going to depend, as it did with Bush II, on which advisers managed to monopolise
his attention, and as it has turned out we've not been fortunate in that. Though there's always the possibility that even if his
bumbling is not a cunning plan to bring about a reduction in US interventionism, it could end up doing so anyway, by some of the
mechanisms proposed above.
Sums it up very neatly for he reminds me very much of Reagan and his tax cuts, that turned into the greatest tax increase in
the history of the country and deficiet's don't matter,well until the bill come due that is,for no sane man would dream of cutting
taxes with a $20 trillion and counting debt,tax cuts that will add another $1.7 trillion to that debt
I enthusiastically voted for Trump, and will do so again..with that said, it's impossible to fail to notice a degree of ignorant
buffoonery that, while well worth the price of not having Hillary as President, is never-the-less occasionally unfortunate.
However,
I'm convinced Trump will NOT take us into war with either North Korea, or Iran. Once that's out of the way, the whole stupidity
factor looms a lot less worryingly. But I suppose I can't prove we won't go to war with the DPRK and/or Iran. I'm convinced events
will bear that out, however.
I agree with Randal. I feel that I understand Trump fairly well. He's a very intelligent person, and in my opinion the best
President the country has ever had.
In order to understand him one needs to be able to figure out where he's going with his statements – not from parsing each and
every word but from the overall picture he tries to paint. And not from just one statement but from the sum of many as time goes
on.
Trump is like the quantum concept of the electron – he's here, then there, and when you try to say exactly where he is, you
find he's somewhere else. But overall, he knows exactly where the nucleus is as he buzzes around it.
He may by turns seem weak, overconfident, being made a tool, silly, etc. But his eye is always on the ball. I have great confidence
in him.
I agree with your sentiments there, both on Trump being the best on offer both in 2016 and probably in 2020 and on the general
likelihood that the US regime as a whole probably does not want wars with either Iran or NK, although very significant parts of
it obviously do, and it's a pretty tight judgement call as to which way they have probably jumped in terms of top level classified
advice to Trump. I still tend to think Trump has most likely been advised that war with either NK or Iran would be too risky and
too costly, but I wouldn't bet my house on it in either case.
However, I'm convinced Trump will NOT take us into war with either North Korea, or Iran. Once that's out of the way, the
whole stupidity factor looms a lot less worryingly. But I suppose I can't prove we won't go to war with the DPRK and/or Iran.
I'm convinced events will bear that out, however.
The problem that remains is that what Trump and his administration clearly have decided upon is a policy of aggressive confrontation
of both NK and Iran, and in doing that they are creating circumstances in which whether or not there is a war might not in practice
be entirely under their control.
Yes, the discussion of Trump's bumbling did bring to mind your description of the contents of that book!
Bearing in mind your comment on another thread, at least we old Cold War generation types faced much worse. Entire superpower
arsenals on launch on warning was a lot worse (for us in the UK and Australia) than the kind of war Trump's bumbling most likely
might set off.
If you really mean this and not in an ironic sense, then dittos a million times over. He loves the country, and the leftists
who hate the USA are in a state of pandemonia after having erroneously assumed that they had the power locked up forever.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro jazz musician.
In one year Trump has been "hillarized" by the neocons and the various lobbies that he claimed he wanted to neutralize
during his campaign. He has kicked out the pacifists and the populists like Bannon and he is about to kick out Tillerson, another
pacifist, to fully embrace the neocons, the riches and the Jewish lobbies. As such he is no different than Hillary.
It seems that in the USA the lobbies are far too powerful to allow any president to remain independent. If he/she does not
agree with the neocons, the Jewish and other lobbies he/shes condemned paralysis and irrel ance.
What makes Trump still better than Hillary is that he is sometime unpredictable and his actions may confuse his 'masters' who
control him. How long can he continues to surprise them? Less and less because he fears that antagonizing them to much, he may
loose his job
I have to agree with the basic premise of the article, with the caveat that its an incredibly risky game. Trump's cowardice
and weakness has the entire world on the edge of nuclear catastrophe. Internal civil war or chaos would be devastating,
but it just might save the world from that which is worse, nuclear devastation.
I plan on voting for the worst possible candidate in 2020, the most vile leftist possible. I figure the left is way to weak
and too hooked on their pathetic bourgeois vices to revolt, but I'm thinking the right might, under the correct pressure.
"It would have been her against a Republican dominated Congress that hates her." No, most of the GOP actually preferred Hillary
to Trump. They still do. The majority of republicans in Congress have been doing everything they can to keep the Obama agenda
in place.
" . Trump winning is probably the best outcome liberals could have hoped for."
Absolutely. The DNC has raised millions of dollars in anti-Trump money, not to mention raising an army of Pussy Warriors. With
all the dissatisfaction with the establishment, there might have been some room for independent mid-term candidates, perhaps even
an anti-war caucus. But, befuddled by RussiaGate, and self-righteously angered by identity politics, the progs are sticking with
strength in numbers. The Dems couldn't have hoped for more.
It breaks my heart to see so many Americans, whole families even, sleeping in tents and in cars wherever they can and it's not
uncommon in a great many American cities and towns. How can that be when the economy is "doing so well"? Sad.
Hillary talked like a warmonger. Things like we will destroy Iran, we will destroy Afghanistan. Stuff like that. She encouraged
war. It made some people nervous. Did it make you happy?
Getting back to your hyperbola – a monkey with a grenade. It's stupid enough not to understand the consequences of its playing
and there is a chance it would not get grenade's pin out. But it's just a matter of time. So I wouldn't say that stupideness is
a good thing, better will be to take this weapon away from hairy hands.
He may by turns seem weak, overconfident, being made a tool, silly, etc. But his eye is always on the ball. I have great
confidence in him.
Funny. I guess how many stupid and dangerous things hel'll must do for you to understand his stupidity. Probably it's not possible
even for Trump do that much -).
"To return to a 'civilized and rational international policy' would require a return to an era prior to 1845 and the War
with Mexico. Since then the US, with pauses to regroup, has had little that was rational and nothing that was civilized in
foreign policy."
What started out as Manifest Destiny morphed into Protecting the Free World and morphed again into A New World Order. It's
all rational in that context, but, as you say, certainly not civilized.
Hillary did insinuate that, if in charge, she would shoot Russian fighter jets over Syria while pushing the idea of a no fly
zone over Syria which would have surely pushed the Russians beyond the pale.
Hillary did state when she was State Secretary that the only way to get China and Russia to stop supporting the Assad regime
is when they realise that they will pay a price for their support.
Also one should not forget her glee and witchy cackle when talking of the (her) assassination of Kaddafi when she famously
said " we came, we saw, he died" hahaha hihihi And what is her contention against Kaddafi? Well, he backed Trump for the presidency.
The woman is a psychopath and whatever one would think of Trump, the whole world should be grateful to Trump that this
woman failed her bid for the presidency for otherwise the world would be a far more dangerous place.
"For example, I think that the decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a wonderful kind of stupid which I
warmly welcome".
Indeed, while trump did prove to be a reality show master, his lack of sophistication when it comes to international politics
makes of him a true village idiot. This move about declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel, which was a de facto reality, did
indeed do so much damage to the United State's prestige and credibility that you have to be a sophist to disagree.
First the
stupidity comes from giving something precious for nothing in return, for if Trump had hoped to gain favours with the Zionists,
then he has only fooled himself for no neo con will change his or her basic animosity to Trump, with or without the Jerusalem
issue.
Second, as Tbe Saker truly states, this decision did unite the resistance to the Anglo Zionist Empire in a way not seen in
recent history especially among Muslims and the anti Isreal axis of resistance.
Are we seeing the incarnation of a political inspector Cluso in the White House? Let us hope that Trump's mistakes will give
the coup de grace to the failing Anglo Zionist Empire, which would be a boon to the American republic, the American public and
the world. Yet, we cannot deny Trump the benefit of the doubt for it may be that dismantling the empire and restoring the republic
his innermost wish.
Yep Trump is easily manipulated, stupid and failed on many aspects. (4d chess ya sure lol). But this allows the world
to wake up to what the US is about (especially the Zionist issue). American establishment and media are bickering over useless
things (gets them busy). Though I imagine the CIA can still do as it wants. If a war can be avoided that would be the best. This
constant Neocon-Zionist and threats to Iran/NK/proxy war in Syria/ is madness.
" I can think of one another guy who was operating on the same principle as a leader of a powerful nation." Could you please
state who that politician or leader might be. It would be interesting to do a comparison.
...I, personally, believe Trump is simply a very good opportunist . Now .there are several examples, also from 20th
Century, of those types too.
In each case it didn't work well for their power base. It worked well for the opportunist himself, while he was in power, and
for his close circle, while he was in power and a bit later on. It worked a bit for the power base at the very beginning, but
later on, worked even worse than before the opportunist seized power.
If "Trump thing" happened anywhere else but in one of superpowers (and the First superpower on top of it) I wouldn't be paying
any attention to all that.
But here .Trump/superpower mistake will have wide world repercussions. And, who's to say it won't go really bad? Potential
is there for sure.
The Trump debacle can be seen as good only looking at the very short term. Trump's stupidity means:
The valid issues he campaigned on (economic, migratory, Christmas, dismantling of NATO and a civilizational entente with
Russia) are going to become tainted if not untouchable for any other conservative candidate.
He is not going to staff the government with conservative bureaucrats, who'll stay on long after he is gone. No new cadres
to soften the Deep State's imperial longings, or the gender ideologues' social re-engineering.
If "whites nationalists" see that following democratic procedure was stupid because Trump was out-maneuvered, the race
wars the (that elites are promoting) are going to grow. Black identity politics was strengthened with Obama's triumph, white
male identity politics with Trump's downfall. No peace, no reconciliation, no common purpose (MAGA) = no nation building.
Regarding Trump's recognizing of Jerusalem as Israel capital, he already explained clearly, he is merely keeping his election
promise, which all past US Prez had make in their campaign but never keep. So why people are now blaming him for carrying out
what US people elected him for?
The whole world of hypocrite leaders voted against this Jerusalem thing in UN is nothing but a show, while openly cordon genocide
in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Libya, support unjustifiable sanction against NK, Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Russia, never even dare
to make a fart in UN, is certainly more disgusted.
In fact, I have repeated elsewhere, Trumps by far is the most honest & integrity Potus in entire US history. At least he speak
his mind(put aside stupidity), try his utter best to keep all his election promises(rt/wrong are what you people wanted) and fight
courageously alone with his only little tool – Twitter – against the siege & onslaught of MSM, whole world hypocrite leaders,
entire states organs, both parties, congress, CIA, FBI, and those foolish people blaming him for doing what you people elected
him for.
Most will give up under such incredible conditions, but Trumps fight on to expose & tear down deep states. That alone make
him worth a Potus, a man that fight against all odds for what he believe is best(rt/wrong aside).
Remember its US people that elected Potus & all politicians into office, not other nations, so you are solely responsible for
all their actions. Osama BL had correctly pointed this out, so don't blame others but yourself when you get the "returns".
Look at what all past hypocrite Potus ever did, only empty promises, shameless lying, corruption, destroying others countries,
violent sowing everywhere, wars, more wars, massacring tens of millions innocents in humanity excuse. If Trumps only play bluffs
but never initiate any wars in his term, he will simply be the greatest Potus in entire US history.
US needs tons of shock to wake up from its deep brainwashed state, unite to destroy their own monstrous government, then build
everything new based on true equality, humanity & benevolent kindness with entire world. Then America can be truly great again.
Hope China & Russia can move fast enough to collapse US hegemonic empire, so we don't need a nuclear war to wake them up.
That's it in a nutshell then, isn't it? What choices did we have? Clinton is Caligula-like evil who possibly could have caused
permanent damage to the country. No way could anyone of conscience have voted for this daughter of the devil. Agreed, the Jerusalem
thing seems to have been unnecessary; the status quo was ok as it was. However, it's only been one year and look how the psychological
environment has changed. Ordinary, traditional Americans are starting to inch out of their foxholes as the persecution of the
Red Guard is now being pushed back against and people feel a renewed sense that they have rights also. I don't think it's "stupid".
There was nothing smart about the Clinton-Bush-Obama regimes, 24 years of undermining the mass of ordinary Americans. Perhaps
the present administration could be called ham-handed and clumsy but time is short.
Progs wait impatiently. Trump speaks deliberately. Pretty soon no progs. The halfrican did stupidly. We'll have to see after three
more years what things history says about Trump. I may be wrong but I don't believe stupid will be one of them.
I do absolutely and completely disagree with Saker. Trump is much smarter than any smartypants on this site thinks. There
is an old proverb: Dog which barks does not bite.
Trump very well know that there is nothing out there he could bite in even
at the order of Ziocons. Venezuela maybe. But Korea is out of question and so Iran is out of question also. And so Trump by circumstances
created by previous administrations cannot assume any another position except being a barking dog. Trump is playing the game right:
He did throw Natanyahu a bone (Jerusalem) so Nathanyahu can chew on it for a while. That will for the time being temper Natanyahu's
pestering him about attacking Iran.
He is also throwing bones to hostile press with his outrageous comments on twitter. In the mean time he is giving republican
party chance to solve the problem of undesirable emigrants. and also any other problems. I am curios what somebody would want
him to do to be so called perfect president.
"... GRAHAM: The first thing I want to tell you he beat me like a drum. He ran against 17 Republicans and crushed us all. He ran against a Clinton machine and won. So all I can say is you can say anything you want to say about the guy. I said he was xenophobic race-baiting religious bigot. I ran out of things to say. He won. Guess what he's our president. ..."
"... GRAHAM: In my view he is my president and doing a good job on multiple fronts. Again I'll tell you why. I went into this thing not voting. I didn't vote for the guy. ..."
Monday on ABC's "The View," when asked about President Donald Trump's
tweet saying he was a "stable genius,"
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that if Trump didn't call himself a genius, "nobody else will."
.to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius .and a very stable
genius at that!
BEHAR: Saturday Trump called himself quote "like really smart" and a stable genius. Do you think he's like really smart and
a stable genius?
GRAHAM: I think this, if he doesn't call himself a genius, nobody else will.
NAVARRO: That was funny.
GRAHAM: The first thing I want to tell you he beat me like a drum. He ran against 17 Republicans and crushed us all. He
ran against a Clinton machine and won. So all I can say is you can say anything you want to say about the guy. I said he was xenophobic
race-baiting religious bigot. I ran out of things to say. He won. Guess what he's our president.
BEHAR: You're calling him a xenophobic religious bigot?
GRAHAM: I did during the campaign.
BEHAR: Yeah you did.
NAVARRO: Is he still all those things?
GRAHAM: In my view he is my president and doing a good job on multiple fronts. Again I'll tell you why. I went into this
thing not voting. I didn't vote for the guy.
"... Tillerson told a news conference in Beijing two weeks ago that the US was directly communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs, but it had shown no interest in dialogue. Trump took to Twitter the next day, saying Tillerson was "wasting his time" trying to negotiate with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. ..."
"... "The greatest diplomatic activities we have are with China, and the most important, and they have come a long, long way," Corker said. "Some of the things we are talking about are phenomenal. "When you jack the legs out from under your chief diplomat, you cause all that to fall apart." He added that working with China was the key to reaching a peaceful settlement with North Korea. ..."
"... "When you publicly castrate your secretary of state, you take that off the table," Corker said. ..."
"... If Tillerson is undermined by Trump, why is he hanging around. He can't be effective. Honorable thing to do is to hand over his resignation. He doesn't need the job. ..."
"... It's bad, but having experienced the 60s and early 70s (Nixon, Watergate, Vietnam, assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Kent State, 1960 Dem Convention, Weather Underground, etc.) I think it's safe to say that we are nowhere near that level. And then there's the Civil War, Andrew Johnson, etc. ..."
"... Forty years of Reagan's mantra that government, taxes, and unions are evil and business is the way, the truth, and the power. Forty years of his trickle down economics which has led to stagnating/declining wages, crumbling infrastructure and, importantly, divestment in k-16 education. Ongoing dog whistles to now include Christian persecution in a primarily Christian country. ..."
"... And remember, we're a big ass country with small, far flung towns. Trump's support is strongest in small, rural communities ..."
"... Trump picked up the GOP ball and ran with it to its natural conclusion -- a know nothing incompetent, narcissistic president who won on the back of the bigotry, fear, and economic lies the GOP's been peddling for decades. ..."
"... I think many people have been secretly hoping that the good cop/bad cop act was part of an agreed strategy for dealing with Kim and the DRK. It's not though is it? Dozza really is as pathetic as he looks. Absolutely out of his depth and endangering everybody with his bullshit. ..."
"... Sadly the typical American has very little to no awareness of the world outside of the US. Their world view and knowledge of the rest of the world is extremely limited and biased. That is why 'America First' is the perfect strap-line for this 'president'. ..."
"... Trump isn't evil. He's thin-skinned, easily goaded, petty and vindictive, and lacks foresight and self-awareness. His attempts to dismantle Obamacare will kill people, but that's not his aim and he doesn't think of it in those terms. He's not evil, just incompetent and irrational. ..."
"... Trump doesn't understand the word "negotiation" anyway. That's why he previously said that any negotiations with NK would be very short. It's because his definition of the word is, "we tell you what we demand, and you do it, regardless of your viewpoint." That's why he makes enemies of everyone he has contact with, a total lack of understanding that a Win-Win approach is better for all (what does it matter what the outcome for "all" is, as long as Trump appears to be the winner). Boils down to his mental condition meaning he has no empathy. ..."
"... Trump is "riding" the surge in jobs that is related entirely to a cyclical recovery from worldwide recession. ..."
"... I think everyone knows the keys the North Korea crisis are China and dialog. But who says the Corporate States and their military-industrial complex want peace? War drives profits. And as anyone who has travelled the US - outside of Vegas, 5th Ave and Hollywood and Vine - knows war is essential to the American identity and needed to maintain cohesion in that fracturing society. Pride in the US military is a foundation stone of the modern US. War is needed to distract the peasants from the rising poverty virtually nil opportunities at home. War on the Korean peninsula may be needed by the Corporate State and if it is it will happen. ..."
"... It is almost as if Donald Trump thinks the Secretary of State's job is to take notes on Donald Trump's statements. ..."
Bob Corker accuses the president of undercutting the secretary of state's efforts to rein in
North Korea's nuclear program
US Republican senator Bob Corker stepped up his public feud with Donald Trump on Friday,
saying the president's undermining of his secretary of state was like castrating him in
public.
Corker told the Washington Post in an interview that Trump had undercut Rex Tillerson's
efforts to enlist China in reining in North Korea's nuclear program by denigrating the
diplomat.
"You cannot publicly castrate your own secretary of state" without limiting the options for
dealing with North Korea, Corker, the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, told
the Post.
Tillerson told a news conference in Beijing two weeks ago that the US was directly
communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs, but it had shown no
interest in dialogue.
Trump took to Twitter the next day, saying Tillerson was "wasting his time" trying to negotiate
with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un.
"The greatest diplomatic activities we have are with China, and the most important, and they
have come a long, long way," Corker said. "Some of the things we are talking about are
phenomenal. "When you jack the legs out from under your chief diplomat, you cause all that to fall
apart." He added that working with China was the key to reaching a peaceful settlement with North
Korea.
"When you publicly castrate your secretary of state, you take that off the table," Corker
said.
Artgoddess 14 Oct 2017 17:05
Tillerson gets A LOT of $ if he lasts a year. Mnuchin, too.
humdum 14 Oct 2017 14:55
If Tillerson is undermined by Trump, why is he hanging around. He can't be effective.
Honorable thing to do is to hand over his resignation. He
doesn't need the job.
LibtardMangina -> imipak 14 Oct 2017 13:06
Like Sadam had no WMDs yet George and Tony pretended they cared whether they were there or
not and went in guns blazing. We're still trying to pick up the pieces. Thanks guys. Dozza's
adventures in NK is the next instalment of this shit show.
willyjack -> lochinverboy 14 Oct 2017 12:54
"This is the low point in America's political history"
It's bad, but having experienced the 60s and early 70s (Nixon, Watergate, Vietnam,
assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Kent State, 1960 Dem Convention, Weather Underground, etc.)
I think it's safe to say that we are nowhere near that level. And then there's the Civil War,
Andrew Johnson, etc.
ConBrio -> CorvidRegina 14 Oct 2017 12:16
She came, she manipulated the nomination process, she lost! Get over it the precipitous
canonization of damaged goods and try to elect someone competent. She ain't risin again.
CorvidRegina -> Abusedbythestate 14 Oct 2017 11:30
politicians playing on people's fears and telling them what they want to hear
That is the true culprit here. The role of politicians has always been to protect the
country, including from its own citizens. Every politician makes use of some fear as a
rhetorical tool, but the American conservatives really took this to a whole new level; they
found an easy and lazy way to keep their support bolstered, by conflating the very worst
traits of the ignorant and gullible with moral, even religious, superiority.
Of course they now consider themselves superior to even the politicians that fed them.
It's hard to feel much pity.
john ayres -> colacj 14 Oct 2017 11:18
[Edited for clarity] Anyone other then primate chosen for this position would outshine
him. Leave at the Russia BS. It is the result of $2B of propaganda from US agencies.
DAW188 14 Oct 2017 11:02
On an international scale what should probably be concerning American voters more than it
is, are the US allies that appear to be pivoting away from them and towards each other. With
an incompetent ninny of a POTUS and absolutely no clear military or diplomatic direction it
is unsurprising that other global players are looking to each other for some security. The
latest fallout over the Iran deal will only exasperate it.
I imagine it has caused some of the diplomats and bureaucrats in Washington to sit up and
feel concerned. But as most US news reporting (even from internationally regarded
publications like the NYT) seems to look no further than the end of its nose, I doubt its
getting much, if any, play amongst US voters.
A fine example of this would be the machinations of the recent meetings between Theresa May
and Shinzo Abe. They represent two of the closest political, economic and military allies of
the US and are arguably key to the US' Atlantic and Pacific spheres of influence. Both
countries find themselves in a bit of a bind. May turns up with a big empty bag labelled
trade deals and Abe greets her with a tin-helmet on fearing a NK missile might drop on his
head at any moment and that the US administration is not reliable enough to step in and
diffuse the tension as it has in the past.
Abe conveniently has a country full of investors who would quite like to get access to the
UK to buy up business on the cheap. May had a few hundred nuclear warheads in her back pocket
that are all transferable anywhere in the world undetected and underwater (say for example in
the South China Sea or the Sea of Japan), as well as a large intelligence agency and a UN
security council seat. Not hard to see how tempting it would be for the two to cut a deal.
The speech that the two leaders gave at the end of their little summit spelt it out. Abe
bigged up Brexit, the opportunities it would afford and the strength of the Anglo-Nippon
economic partnership, whilst May reaffirmed British commitments to defend its ally Japan's
interests in a big two fingers up to Beijing and Pyongyang. Suddenly the US has two powerful
allies turning away from it and towards each other, providing support that the US was once a
bridge for.
This isn't restricted to the UK or Japan. Look at Macron in France and Merkel in Germany.
Trudeau in Canada and Pena Nieto in Mexico. Even loyal old Bibi is getting in on the act when
he recently invited India's Modi around for tea in Jerusalem.
Then you have theoretical allies, that have questionable intentions. Qatar and the Saudis
remain at each others throats. The Emir of Qatar (or should that be his mother, the former
Queen Moza, the power behind the curtain) certainly seems increasingly enamored with the
Iranian's. Whilst the tensions in the Gulf are the way they are, it may not be the time to
try and up-end again the relationship with Iran.
mbidding -> JEM5260 14 Oct 2017 11:00
Fifty years of the GOP putting party before country is how too many voters have been duped
and misinformed.
Fifty years of Nixon's Southern Strategy and subsequent dog whistle politics aimed at
convincing "real" Americans that people of color, liberals, intellectuals, and secular
humanists are out to destroy their way of life and are the causes of all their woes.
Forty years of Reagan's mantra that government, taxes, and unions are evil and
business is the way, the truth, and the power. Forty years of his trickle down economics
which has led to stagnating/declining wages, crumbling infrastructure and, importantly,
divestment in k-16 education. Ongoing dog whistles to now include Christian persecution in a
primarily Christian country.
Thirty five years of repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by which "news" has become nothing
more than politically propagandized infotainment.
And remember, we're a big ass country with small, far flung towns. Trump's support is
strongest in small, rural communities -- communities with no experience with diversity of any
type (political, economic, and social). These folks have been groomed by the GOP for fifty
years to believe that liberal policies and non whites are out to get them and only the GOP
and business have their backs.
Trump picked up the GOP ball and ran with it to its natural conclusion -- a know nothing
incompetent, narcissistic president who won on the back of the bigotry, fear, and economic
lies the GOP's been peddling for decades.
LibtardMangina 14 Oct 2017 10:44
I think many people have been secretly hoping that the good cop/bad cop act was part of an
agreed strategy for dealing with Kim and the DRK. It's not though is it? Dozza really is as
pathetic as he looks. Absolutely out of his depth and endangering everybody with his
bullshit.
Abusedbythestate -> Conradsagent 14 Oct 2017 08:23
It will still end in tears for the yanks - a powerful military will not save the dollar -
change is the one constant in the universe - where is the roman empire, the British empire,
the Portuguese and Spanish empires, the Venetian empire now???? No one state stays the top
dog for ever.
The rest of the world will see to that - the British and Europe are starting to
look East and Trump is helping them do that to become so isolated, the US will become a
backwater as quick as the USSR collapsed almost overnight. It only takes one extra straw to
break the camel's back
Abusedbythestate -> digamey 14 Oct 2017 08:19
Indeed - I have many German friends and we talk about how any group of people in a nation
can vote a nutter into power - Hitler being one of the most in(famous). At the end of the
day, in all of the world in every nation state, there are a lot of very dumb people - the
majority of the electorate to a greater or lesser degree - it's not their fault - we are all
born entirely ignorant and our culture forms our opinions and our ability to question - do
you remember how often at school, you were encouraged to question anything? or were facts,
facts?
Pile on top of that a very powerful media, politicians playing on people's fears and
telling them what they want to hear, and people's general gullibility and it's no great
surprise that the Germans voted for Hitler, the Yanks voted for Trump and our dumb country
voted .... well, vote the way they do - the fact that people seem happy with our so called
democracies around the world that are far from democratic, depending on definition, and where
we're often given a choice of just one or two options that seem incredibly similar in policy
compared to the vast possible alternatives on how to run a country/economy - heaven forbid we
might attempt an "extreme" alternative!!!
3melvinudall 14 Oct 2017 08:18
It seems some Republicans have decided now is the time to take down Trump. From what the
country has seen of how Trump does "business" better to take him on now than deal with the
disastrous consequences of his failures. Captain Trump is taking the ship down with his
incompetence...problem is: we are all on that ship.
Gytaff -> Mordicant 14 Oct 2017 07:48
Sadly the typical American has very little to no awareness of the world outside of the
US. Their world view and knowledge of the rest of the world is extremely limited and biased.
That is why 'America First' is the perfect strap-line for this 'president'.
The Trump base doesn't give a toss about 'worldwide economic momentum', they only see what
is happening in their own back yards. This is why Trump is doing well with his base, they see
his posturing against North Korea, Iran and Syria as strength, they see his threats to trade
deals as protectionist and have absolutely no problem with it, it's perfectly aligned with
their views and mindset.
The Democrats are going to have a serious battle in the mid-terms, they need to find a way
to appeal to the common man and give them what Trump keeps promising to deliver (but not, so
far!). They need to show that they, as elitists can empathize with the common man's position,
needs and beliefs, sadly the democrats have a long way to go! The Republicans are also
screwed as Trump_vs_deep_state is anathema to their candidates too.
The next 12 months are going to be 'interesting times'!
Conradsagent -> ConBrio 14 Oct 2017 07:34
The US is one of the most fundamentalist, extreme religious whack job countries on the
planet.
As for addiction to US protection...it is also one of the most (if not, the most)
dangerously confused countries on earth. The world needs protecting 'from' it...not by it
corneilius -> pruneau 14 Oct 2017 07:24
Exactly the same can be said of the Tory party in the UK, especially the belief that you
run a national economy on the same principles of a household budget.
saintkiwi -> Prumtic 14 Oct 2017 07:23
I think half the cabinet and half of Congress may actually go along with it; we know from
whispers around the White House and Washington that many, if not most, Republicans think
Trump is temperamentally/psychologically unfit for the post. Maybe Corker is the crack in the
dam that eventually leads to catastrophic failure and flood; maybe not.
Pence is a total stiff, though. No way such a conservative guy would implement such an
historic and radical action as forcibly* removing a sitting president, no matter how nuts
that C-in-C was.
*(and yes, I can envisage Tump literally having to be dragged from the Oval Office)
UB__DK 14 Oct 2017 07:02
I hope the 25th amendment is on the agenda behind the scenes. It is clear to everyone that
the president is unqualified. He is steadily eroding the credibility of the office he holds
and of the entire West on the international political scene. And the longer his removal is
delayed the worse it will get.
BeenThereDunThat -> ClearlyNow 14 Oct 2017 06:39
Oh dear, another Trumpkin. I am no fan of Merkel - a neoliberal to her boots. But at least
she has some humanity and actually cares for other members of the human race outside of her
immediate family - and to be honest, I doubt the Tango Tyrant cares for his family other than
their being a projection of his own narcissistic ego.
As for Germany, its economy still marches along with it being the number 4 economy in the
world and the top of the G5 group. It's standard of living remains high while social
inequality is far lower than in countries such as the US or the UK.
So sorry, but another pathetically failed straw-man - or in this case, straw-woman -
attempt to deflect attention from the discussion at hand.
Ramas100 14 Oct 2017 05:49
It's the military generals who are stroking Trump's ego by telling him there is a military
solution to N Korea and Iran.
RichWoods -> blairsnemesis 14 Oct 2017 05:47
but Trump is the most evil and worst person to hold the post, ever.
Trump isn't evil. He's thin-skinned, easily goaded, petty and vindictive, and lacks
foresight and self-awareness. His attempts to dismantle Obamacare will kill people, but
that's not his aim and he doesn't think of it in those terms. He's not evil, just incompetent
and irrational.
All those things were apparent during the election campaign, so whatever your politics you
have no excuse if you voted for someone who is so patently unfit to hold public office.
blairsnemesis -> FrankRoberts 14 Oct 2017 05:23
I suspect he realised before he even took up the post that he was far too thick for the
job. Reagan was an appalling bag of shit but Trump is the most evil and worst person to hold
the post, ever. I only hope that if someone doesn't kill him (and they'd have my full backing
because he is an immense threat to the world), he gets put behind bars, along with the rest
of his thick-as-pigshit family, for life.
Prumtic -> HelpAmerica 14 Oct 2017 05:14
Trump doesn't understand the word "negotiation" anyway. That's why he previously said
that any negotiations with NK would be very short. It's because his definition of the word
is, "we tell you what we demand, and you do it, regardless of your viewpoint." That's why he
makes enemies of everyone he has contact with, a total lack of understanding that a Win-Win
approach is better for all (what does it matter what the outcome for "all" is, as long as
Trump appears to be the winner). Boils down to his mental condition meaning he has no
empathy.
MortimerSnerd 14 Oct 2017 05:11
Just trying to keep the faith here until the mid terms. Trump is more bluster than balls,
and he is not The Emperor. There are checks and balances in the system and the system has
thwarted him on many occasions.
peterxpto -> LondonFog 14 Oct 2017 05:03
Trump is "riding" the surge in jobs that is related entirely to a cyclical recovery
from worldwide recession.
Kevin Cox -> WhigInterpretation 14 Oct 2017 04:46
Well said. Regarding Congress, people do not understand the way the US is hobbled by a
constitution that facilitates the lobbying of special interests - so long as it is not the
labor movement - and which is very, very hard to change. So much for the Founding Fathers and
what they accomplished and made difficult to alter.
tippisheadrun -> simba72 14 Oct 2017 04:29
Absolutely.
President Ted Cruz, President Mike Huckabee, President Ben Carson, President Chris Christie,
President Rick Santorum, President Marco Rubio - take your prick - none of them would promote
any sense of security in the populace. With the exception of John Kasich, the GOP nominee was
destined to be a dangerous character- either through lack of scruples or a misguided sense of
their own righteousness.
daWOID -> digamey 14 Oct 2017 02:53
Fun fact: "the lifestyle of the good citizens of Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Wisconsin, West
Virginia and Texas etc., etc" collapsed a long time ago.
juster digamey 14 Oct 2017 02:50
The dollar is not going to stay the reserve currency forever. Its just math. If an average
chinese can reach 25% productivity of an average amreican, and there is no reason they cant,
they will have by all metrics the largest economy. At that stage USD keeping its present day
status is impossible even if Abraham Lincoln gets revived an re elected.
charles47 -> RealityCheck2016 14 Oct 2017 02:22
I am involved in negotiations every day of my working life, with staff, with Trustees
(directors), with local authorities, with suppliers.
I have good working relationships with most of them. Must be doing something right, while
doing a job that matters to me personally. I've met Trump types. They wouldn't last five
minutes in the world I live and work in. Too "entitled" and far too full of themselves.
Generally, if I come across someone like that, they don't get our business because they are
long on promise, short on delivery, and more interested in getting the "deal" than
considering our needs as an organisation - which is the selling point I look for, as with
most people. One-sided deals don't work and don't last.
As for affording to go to a Trump hotel...if I could, I wouldn't. I have my favourites,
and my personal standards that don't involve glitter without substance.
jon donahue -> BhoGhanPryde 14 Oct 2017 01:57
Iran. At about 10,000 dead, it could go on for about three years with beaucoup contracts
to be had. Perfect for all the flag-wavers.
Korea? No. Too many dead too fast, could run up to 25,000 in a hurry. Plus, Seoul smoked.
Bad optics, no money in it...
jon donahue 14 Oct 2017 01:52
Trump is a train wreck. Incompetent. Unable to manage, unable to negotiate, unable to
govern.
The good news is that we don't actually need a functioning President, with the world
pretty much at peace and the economy doing well enough.
Everybody in the government and military can just work around the jerk.
digamey 14 Oct 2017 01:38
Republicans are experts at protecting their own butts. While Trump's numbers hold, they
will bitch about him in private and suck up to him in public. Once his numbers start to tank,
as inevitably they will, they will turn upon him and savage him in a manner with which even
the most voracious hyenas could not compete.
BhoGhanPryde 14 Oct 2017 00:38
I think everyone knows the keys the North Korea crisis are China and dialog. But who
says the Corporate States and their military-industrial complex want peace? War drives
profits. And as anyone who has travelled the US - outside of Vegas, 5th Ave and Hollywood and
Vine - knows war is essential to the American identity and needed to maintain cohesion in
that fracturing society. Pride in the US military is a foundation stone of the modern US. War
is needed to distract the peasants from the rising poverty virtually nil opportunities at
home. War on the Korean peninsula may be needed by the Corporate State and if it is it will
happen.
Mike Bray 13 Oct 2017 23:37
It is almost as if Donald Trump thinks the Secretary of State's job is to take notes
on Donald Trump's statements.
Atlantic used to have a strong pro-Hillary bias and stooges are prominent among its correspondents, so all information should be
take with huge grain of salt. may be this is just a "color revolution" style campaign to provoke the President of some outburst that
hurts him politically.
But Trump behaviour in case of North Korea speaks for itself so this is not pure insinuations...
Notable quotes:
"... On the North Korean front, the president has repeatedly made bellicose remarks for months, even as aides try to slow-walk the slide toward war, warning of the catastrophic destruction that would result, insisting that all options remain on the table, and trying to keep diplomatic channels open -- only to see Trump repeatedly undercut them. Even as the president seems eager for confrontation, more prudent members of the team have sought to redirect his anger. ..."
"... Bargaining is another technique, as recent news about Iran shows. While many of Trump's aides had their gripes about the 2015 deal with Tehran to prevent nuclear proliferation, most of them seem to agree that keeping the deal in place is far preferable to eliminating it. ..."
"... Trump's childish behavior was worrying when it involved belittling his opponents, discussing his genitalia, or taking swipes at former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, but it takes on a new level of danger when it affects U.S. military policy ..."
... Or, for that matter, whether the U.S. might go to war soon with either North Korea or Iran,
as I wrote yesterday
. On the North Korean front, the president has repeatedly made bellicose remarks for months, even as aides try to slow-walk the
slide toward war, warning of the catastrophic destruction that would result, insisting that all options remain on the table, and
trying to keep diplomatic channels open -- only to see Trump repeatedly undercut them. Even as the president seems eager for confrontation,
more prudent members of the team have sought to redirect his anger.
Bargaining is another technique, as recent news about Iran shows. While many of Trump's aides had their gripes about the 2015
deal with Tehran to prevent nuclear proliferation, most of them seem to agree that keeping the deal in place is far preferable to
eliminating it. But now the administration seems likely to punt the issue, decertifying the deal but leaving it to Congress to either
let it stand or fall. (So much for Harry S. Truman's "the buck stops here.") Why take this halfway step? Part of it is that, just
as on DACA, Trump wants to keep a campaign promise to end the deal without suffering the consequences, but another part is childish
petulance: Olivier Knox reports Trump simply hates
being confronted with the need to recertify the deal every 90 days.
And then, as every parent knows, sometimes you just have to give in -- let the kid have a victory on something less significant.
Aides can try to prevent war with North Korea, and they can seek compromise on the Iran deal, and they can quietly kill the demand
for more nukes, but they've got to let the president have his way on occasion.
When Trump demands "goddamned steam" to power catapults on aircraft carriers, aides shrug and let it go.
Trump's childish behavior was worrying when it involved belittling his opponents, discussing his genitalia, or taking swipes
at former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, but it takes on a new level of danger when it affects U.S. military policy, from Iran
to North Korea to the nuclear arsenal.
There's a powerful, perhaps too powerful, urge to
seek historical analogues for Trump , but
seldom has there been
a president whose own loyalists and insiders were so dismissive of his maturity, judgment, and prudence. So how does the presidency
work when the president's aides treat him like a child? The immediate answer is, not very well. The longer-term answers are murkier
and scarier.
"... His threat to wipe out North Korea reminded me of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. Great theater but makes one thing that the shoe banger is crazy. There is no acceptable military option in North Korea. ..."
"... But Trump is not the only one spouting such madness. We've heard the same delusional threats from SecDef Mattis and National Security Advisor McMaster. ..."
That's essentially what Donald Trump did yesterday. He spoke from the gut without thinking through the consequences.
His threat to wipe out North Korea reminded me of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. Great theater
but makes one thing that the shoe banger is crazy. There is no acceptable military option in North Korea.
But Trump is not the only one spouting such madness. We've heard the same delusional threats from SecDef Mattis and National
Security Advisor McMaster.
I learned a long time ago that you do not make threats you are not will to carry out. In fact, I'm a firm believer in the sucker
punch. Why tell someone what you are going to do and how you are going to do it? That stuff only works in Hollywood.
"... Everyone who has any hopes for Trump will be disappointed. He failed even to build a team to support his agenda and now he is basically all alone being drained. ..."
"... Basically I would love him to be American Gorbo-Yeltsin and considering USA top is as rotten to the core as Soviet was, I hope for similar results which would have been beneficial to the world. ..."
Everyone who has any hopes for Trump will be disappointed. He failed even to build a team to support his agenda and now
he is basically all alone being drained.
My only hope for his is being proverbial bull in china shop to ruin everything and expose USA for the whole world.
Basically I would love him to be American Gorbo-Yeltsin and considering USA top is as rotten to the core as Soviet was,
I hope for similar results which would have been beneficial to the world.
"... As The Hill correctly pointed out, "Haley's description runs counter to the versions offered by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Trump himself ." ..."
"... But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump's agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN, "[w]e can't trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check." ..."
"... It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing, foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to sabotage President Trump's first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get along better with Russia, President Trump's own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his foreign policy. ..."
Donald Trump came to the White House with a reputation as a top notch businessman. He built
an international real estate empire and is worth billions. He then went into reality
television, where his signature line as he dismissed incompetent potential employees was,
"you're fired!"
On Friday, President Trump held a long-awaited face-to-face meeting with his Russian
counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The meeting was scheduled to be a brief, 30 minute meet and greet,
but turned into a two-plus hour substantive session producing a ceasefire agreement for parts
of Syria and a plan to continue working together in the future. After the extended session,
which was cordial by all accounts, President Trump said the meeting was "tremendous."
President Trump indicated that the issue of Russian interference in the US elections came up
in conversation and that Putin vehemently denied it. It obviously was not a make or break issue
in the conversation. President Trump's latest statement on the issue is that "we don't know for
sure" who was behind any meddling.
Later on Friday, President Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson,
said
of the Syria agreement that, "I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being
able to work together in Syria."
On Sunday, President Trump
Tweeted
in praise of the
Syria ceasefire agreement, adding that, "now it is time to move forward in working
constructively with Russia!"
It suddenly appeared that the current reprise of a vintage 1950s US/Soviet face-off in
relations had turned the corner back to sanity. Perhaps we will be pulling back from the edge
of WWIII with thermonuclear weapons!
Then President Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations, the notorious neocon Nikki Haley,
showed up on the weekend talk shows.
To CNN's Dana Bash, she directly contradicted her boss, Donald Trump, and undermined his
official position regarding Russian involvement in the US election.
Said
Ambassador Haley of Trump's meeting with Putin:
One, he wanted to basically look him in the eye, let him know that, yes, we know you
meddled in our elections. Yes, we know you did it, cut it out. And I think President Putin
did exactly what we thought he would do, which is deny it. This is Russia trying to save
face. And they can't. They can't. Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our
elections.
But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump's
agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN, "[w]e can't
trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so
that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check."
It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively
undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing,
foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to
sabotage President Trump's first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get
along better with Russia, President Trump's own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his
foreign policy.
Surely the President – who as an enormously successful businessman has hired and fired
thousands – can see the damage she is doing to his Administration by actively undermining
his foreign policy.
President Trump needs to reprise his signature television line. He needs to pick up the
phone, ask for Nikki, and shout "you're FIRED!" into the telephone.
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.
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.
Outgoing US President Donald Trump has delivered his "parting gift" to the Moscow-led Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, with newly announced sanctions targeting a pipe-laying vessel and companies involved in the multinational project.
© Evan Vucci, AP Images President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at the White House.
Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect
Adam Driver Has Put Everything He's Got Onscreen
Office Treats Bring Out the Worst of Humanity Advertisement Continue reading the main story
![Donald Trump wearing a suit and tie: President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at the White House.]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"53","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17jamr.img?h=746&w=1119&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=2395&y=851"},"dpi":1.4,"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"42","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17jamr.img?h=584&w=874&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=2395&y=851"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"42","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17jamr.img?h=584&w=874&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=2395&y=851"}})
© Evan Vucci, AP Images President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at the
White House.
Bernie
Sanders: An Emergency Response to the
Democrats
join with Trump in bipartisan push for
US nursing home catastrophe: Increasing numbers of
'Immediate danger': Half of world's workforce could
Coronavirus pandemic is 'ACCELERATING,'
The
Decade
